Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Mendocino County Super. Ct. Nos. MCWLCRCR0672255, MCWLCRCR0353717
RUVOLO, P. J.
Appellant Corey David Wake appeals from an eight-year state prison sentence he received (subject to local custody credits) after the court found him to be in violation of probation in Case No. MCWLCRCR0353717 (hereafter Case No. 0353717) and probation was terminated, and appellant pleaded guilty to two counts in Case No. MCWLCRCR0672255 (hereafter Case No. 0672255). Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel submitted a declaration stating that he notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
Following appellant’s filing of a notice of appeal, several letters and orders were exchanged with the trial court concerning the amount of appellant’s pre-judgment credits. It appears that matter has been satisfactorily resolved.
In Case No. 0353717, appellant was originally charged by information filed on April 14, 2003, by the Mendocino County District Attorney with one count of inflicting injury on a dependent adult. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).) Subsequently, the information was amended to alleged one count of false imprisonment (§ 368, subd. (a)(1)), to which appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on probation.
All further undesignated statutes refer to the Penal Code.
While appellant was still on probation in Case No. 0353717, a new information was filed on February 7, 2007, in Case No. 0672255, charging appellant with four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), one count of oral copulation with a child under the age of 14 (§ 288a, subd. (c)(1)), and one count of sexual penetration with a foreign object on a person under the age of 14 (§ 289, subd. (j)). Special allegations were also alleged.
On May 23, 2007, defense counsel declared a doubt as to appellant’s competency, and pursuant to section 1368, criminal proceeding were stayed and two mental examinations were ordered by the court. Thereafter, appellant was declared incompetent to stand trial, proceedings in both cases were suspended, and appellant was committed to Napa State Hospital.
A certificate was submitted by the medical director of Napa State Hospital on August 11, 2009, declaring appellant’s competency had been restored, and appellant was ordered returned to court. Thereafter, the court found appellant to be competent, and proceedings were reinstated on October 2, 2009.
On June 11, 2010, appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct (§ 288a) (counts one and four). The plea contemplated a maximum state prison term of ten years. Appellant was referred to another mental health professional to determine if appellant was amenable to probation, pursuant to section 288.1. Based on the plea, the court found that appellant had violated the terms of probation in Case No. 0353717. A sentencing hearing was scheduled in both cases for August 6, 2009.
At sentencing, appellant was sentenced in Case No. 0672255 to eight years in state prison: six years as to count one, and a consecutive term of two years as to count four. Following revocation of appellant’s probation in Case No. 0353717, appellant was ordered to serve a two-year state prison term in that case, to run concurrent with the sentence in Case No. 0672255.
Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. We discern no error in the sentencing or plea disposition. The revocation of probation, the refusal to grant a new term of probation, and the sentencing choices made by the trial court were consistent with the plea negotiated, they were supported by substantial evidence, and were well within the discretion of the trial court. The restitution fines and penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel.
Disposition
The judgments in both captioned cases are affirmed.
We concur: REARDON, J.SEPULVEDA, J.