Opinion
A131612
09-08-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDRICK D. WILLIAMS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR923804)
Fredrick D. Williams appeals from a judgment entered after a no contest plea. His court-appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. As the appeal is based solely on grounds occurring after the entry of the plea and does not challenge the validity of the plea, it is authorized (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)).
FACTS
The facts, which we take from the presentence report prepared by the chief probation officer, are essentially as follows: On October 17, 2010, Clearlake police officers were told by Calina Bustillos, the victim of a residential burglary earlier that day, that she had been told by a friend that appellant had attempted to sell one of the items taken from Ms. Bustillos's home. Officers went to appellant's home and conducted a probation search that disclosed numerous items taken from Ms. Bustillos's home. Appellant admitted knowing these items were stolen. The officers also found a plastic baggy containing a usable amount of methamphetamine and a bag containing numerous rounds of ammunition.
PROCEEDINGS BELOW
On January 14, 2011 (all subsequent dates are in that year), the Lake County District Attorney filed an information charging appellant with five felony counts of, respectively, first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459 ), theft with prior theft convictions (§§ 484, subd. (a)/ 666), unlawfully possessing ammunition (§ 12136, subd. (b)(1)), possessing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a).) Appellant waived a preliminary hearing.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On February 1, appellant withdrew his previous plea of not guilty to all of the charges and allegations set forth in the information and entered no contest pleas to one felony count of unlawfully possessing ammunition, one misdemeanor count of possessing methamphetamine, and one felony count of receiving stolen property. He also admitted three prior convictions, rendering it illegal for him to possess a firearm or ammunition (§§ 12021, 12021.1; see also 12316, subd. (b)(1)).
Before accepting appellant's plea, the court admonished appellant regarding the rights he would waive by entering a plea and appellant confirmed that he signed the plea form and was admitting the prior convictions freely and voluntarily after being informed by his counsel of the consequences of doing so. The court also inquired of counsel whether he had discussed with appellant the rights he was giving up, and was satisfied appellant understood those rights; counsel assured the court that he had informed appellant of the rights he was forfeiting and was satisfied appellant understood them. The court also admonished appellant and insured that he understood that he faced a maximum state prison sentence of two years eight months, and that the court would likely deny probation and impose the maximum term unless it concluded that the case presented unusual circumstances justifying a grant of probation. (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)).
In the presentence report dated March 3, and filed with the court on March 23, the probation department recommended denial of probation and imposition of the maximum aggregate state prison sentence to which appellant was exposed by his plea, two years eight months.
At the sentencing hearing held on March 23, the court denied appellant's request for probation "primarily because of [his] prior criminal record, including three prior felony convictions, [his] poor performance on probation, and the fact that [he was] on felony probation at the time of the commission of the offense in this case." The court then imposed a state prison sentence of two years eight months, which was comprised of the middle term of two years on the ammunition count (§ 12136, subd. (b)(1)) and a consecutive term of eight months for the receiving stolen property count (§ 496, subd. (a)). The court also imposed a concurrent one-year jail term for the misdemeanor methamphetamine count (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court denied appellant's request for concurrent sentencing on the two felony counts due to "the separate nature of the offenses" and the court's "intention to sentence the misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine concurrently."
The court awarded appellant 310 days of presentence credits, comprised of 155 days of actual custody credits (§ 2900.5, subd. (a)) and 155 days of conduct credits (§ 2933, subd.(e)). Finally, the court imposed a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $600 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked) (§ 1202.45), a drug lab fee and assessments totaling $200 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), a drug program fee and assessments totaling $600 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), a $90 criminal justice administrative fee (Gov. Code, § 29550, subd.(c)), a $120 court security fee (§ 1465.8),and a $90 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
On March 29, the court dismissed the remaining charges in the information.
On March 25, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from "the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea." Appellant did not request a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, an appellant has pled guilty or no contest to an offense, the scope of reviewable issues 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, 895-896.)
The admonitions given appellant at the time he entered his plea fully conformed with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, and his waiver was knowing and voluntary.
The record provides a factual basis for the plea.
Nothing in the record suggests appellant may have been mentally incompetent to stand trial, and he was at all times represented by competent counsel who protected his rights and interests.
The trial court had discretion to grant or deny probation, the denial of probation was not an abuse of that discretion, and the sentence imposed is authorized by law.
Our independent review having revealed no arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment of conviction, which includes the sentence imposed, is affirmed.
Kline, P.J. We concur: Haerle, J. Lambden, J.