Opinion
E053458 Super.Ct.No. FVA1000833
12-09-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GUY MICKEL WESSELL ,Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson Uhler, Judge. Affirmed.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On May 28, 2010, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Guy Mickel Wessell with manufacturing methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a) (count 1). Under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (b), the complaint also alleged that defendant had seven drug-related prior convictions. The complaint further alleged that defendant had served four separate prison terms under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.
On March 9, 2011, defendant entered into a plea agreement wherein he waived his rights and entered a plea of no contest to count 1, and admitted one drug-related prior and two prison priors; in exchange for a sentence of 12 years in prison. The parties stipulated that the police report, lab reports, and defendant's rap sheet provided the factual basis for the plea and admissions.
On April 7, 2011, according to the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Defendant received 460 days of presentence custody credit.
On April 28, 2011, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal "based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea."
I
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The police report, which provided the factual basis for the plea, stated:
"The above suspect was stopped for CVC 4000a expired registration by Deputy Davenport. During the traffic stop the suspect set fire to his vehicle. When the fire department put the fire out[,] the trunk was opened. A suspected boxed methamphetamine lab was found in the trunk. Sheriff's Narcotics Division was called to the scene to assist with the investigation. When I arrived[,] I removed several items from the trunk that were consistent with items found in a methamphetamine lab. The following items were located during the initial search of the trunk: muriatic acid, empty bottles of Heet, coffee filters with red staining (suspected Red Phosphorus) and a black bag that contained Iodine Tincture bottles. The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Crime Lab responded to the scene and processed the lab."
II
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so. In his two-page supplemental brief, defendant contends that (1) he essentially was "forced under pressure" to plead no contest although he was "not capable of making" the decision because of his previous injury; and (2) there are alleged "grave errors and confusion between the reporter's transcripts and the clerk's transcript on appeal" regarding the priors. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
Due to defendant's inability to write as a result of a stroke, his handwritten brief was written by another person, but signed with an "X," by defendant.
We hereby address defendant's contentions. We first address whether the record supports defendant's contention that he was forced to plead no contest. We have reviewed the record and disagree with defendant's contention. Nowhere in the record does defendant indicate that he felt pressured to enter into the plea agreement, or that he had any hesitation to enter into an agreement. At the hearing wherein defendant pled no contest, the trial court asked defendant repeatedly if he understood the consequences of his actions; defendant replied yes. For example, the trial court asked if defendant had "ample opportunity to talk to your attorney, not only about those rights, but also the consequences of this guilty plea," and defendant replied, "Yes, sir." Thereafter, the court outlined the details of the plea and asked defendant, "[i]s that your understanding of the total agreement?" Again, defendant replied, "Yes, sir." When the court asked if defendant was entering the pleas and admissions of his own free will, defendant responded, "Yes, sir." Nothing in the record indicates that there was ever a concern about defendant's inability to understand his plea or that he was pressured.
Next, we address whether there is inconsistency in the record regarding his priors. The reporter's transcript and clerk's transcript, however, are not inconsistent. The reporter's transcript shows that within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, defendant admitted his prior conviction in Riverside County under Health and Safety Code section 11383, subdivision (c). The clerk's transcript shows that within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, defendant admitted that he was convicted in Riverside County under Health and Safety Code section 11383, subdivision (c). Moreover, both the reporter's transcript and clerk's transcript show that defendant thereafter admitted that within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, he served two prior prison terms for violations of Health and Safety Code section 11383 in Riverside County, and Health and Safety Code section 11377 in San Bernardino County. There is no inconsistency. Defendant admitted one prior conviction, and two prison priors.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKinste r Acting P.J. We concur: King J. Miller J.