Opinion
A148311
03-10-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHAQUEZ WILLARD, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 173828)
Defendant Shaquez Willard entered pleas of no contest to two counts of first degree burglary; one count of attempted first degree burglary; one count of home invasion; one count of assault with a firearm; and one count of possessing a loaded stolen firearm. Defendant admitted various enhancement allegations. The only remaining charge was a single count of second degree robbery involving the personal use of a firearm, which was the subject of a bench trial. At the conclusion of a brief trial, the court found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted second degree robbery involving the personal use of a firearm. Defendant was thereafter sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 15 years and eight months.
Defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he advises that he finds no arguable issues to present, and, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requests this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Appointed counsel advised defendant he was entitled to file a supplemental brief, but defendant elected not to do so.
With respect to the charges to which defendant in effect pleaded guilty (see Pen. Code, § 1016, subd. 3), the scope of reviewable issues on appeal is restricted to matters based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings leading to the plea; guilt or innocence are not included. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 894-896.) No such ground appears from the record. At the time defendant changed his pleas, he was represented by competent counsel who safeguarded his interests. The change of pleas complied with the formalities required by Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. Defendant was advised of the consequences of the change of pleas as required by In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857. There was an adequate factual basis for the change of pleas.
With respect to the robbery charge submitted to the court, defendant continued to be represented by able counsel. Defendant's conviction of the lesser included offense of attempted second degree robbery involving the personal use of a firearm is supported by substantial evidence. The victim testified that it was defendant, whom he positively identified from a photo array and at the trial, who came up to him, pointed a firearm at him, and demanded money (which the victim did not have).
Imposition of the various terms of imprisonment did not involve an illegal sentence. Defendant's custody and conduct credits were correctly calculated in the manner required by Penal Code sections 4019 and 2933.1.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
/s/_________
Richman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Kline, P.J. /s/_________
Miller, J.