Opinion
D070968
02-10-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMAL LADELL WILKENS, Defendant and Appellant.
Patricia M. Ihara, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD264392) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia M. Ihara, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jamal Ladell Wilkens appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to assault with the intent to commit sodomy (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1)) and his admission of a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Wilkens has not responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
While Wilkens was incarcerated in the San Diego County Jail, his cellmate complained to authorities that Wilkens had sodomized him against his will on more than one occasion. A medical examination showed contusions in the cellmate's anus, which were consistent with trauma.
Wilkens stipulated to the facts established at the preliminary hearing as the basis for his guilty plea. We accordingly base our factual description on the preliminary hearing testimony. --------
On June 20, 2016, an amended information charged Wilkens with one count of assault with the intent to commit sodomy (§ 220, subd. (a)(1)), and alleged that Wilkens incurred one serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), one prison prior (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668) and two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668).
On June 20, 2016, Wilkins pled guilty to the single count charged in the amended information and admitted a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one of his prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). As part of the plea agreement, the parties agreed that the trial court would not impose an upper-term sentence, and the People agreed to strike one of Wilken's prior strikes and to dismiss the balance of the amended information.
At sentencing, after considering the statement in mitigation filed by Wilkens, the trial court selected a middle-term sentence and sentenced Wilkens to prison for a term of 13 years.
Wilkens filed a notice of appeal, specifying that the appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the guilty plea.
II.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): (1) whether Wilkens was properly advised of his constitutional rights and consequences of pleading before entering his guilty plea; (2) whether Wilkens was correctly informed about the maximum sentence; (3) whether the trial court correctly imposed the stipulated sentence as negotiated in the plea agreement; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Wilkens to the middle-term sentence.
After we received counsel's brief, we gave Wilkens an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but Wilkens did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Wilkens has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J. WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J. HALLER, J.