Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Nos. SWF020579 & SWF022694. Paul I. Metzler, Judge. (Retired judge of the Los Angeles Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Sachi Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
McKinster, Acting P.J.
I
INTRODUCTION
On August 24, 2007, the Riverside County District Attorney filed an information, case No. SWF020579, charging defendant and appellant Gregorio Zamora with unlawful possession of a firearm under Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1); unlawful possession of ammunition under section 12316, subdivision (b)(1) (count 2); and active participation in a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (a). The information also alleged that defendant committed the offenses in association with a criminal street gang with specific intent to promote, further, and assist in any criminal conduct by gang members within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). Furthermore, the information alleged that defendant had suffered three previous convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On August 23, 2007, in case No. SWF022694, the Riverside County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant with violating sections 664 and 422, attempted criminal threat. The complaint also alleged that defendant committed the offense in association with a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). The complaint further alleged three prior offenses within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On November 13, 2007, defendant pled guilty to the charges in both case No. SWF020579 and case No. SWF022694. Defendant was sentenced immediately following his guilty pleas. In case No. SWF020579, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years on count 1, the middle term of eight months on count 2, and the middle term of eight months on count 3, to run consecutively. The court added a one-year enhancement for one of the previous convictions. The court then struck the enhancements on counts 1 and 2, and struck two of the three prior strikes. In case No. SWF022694, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of one year six months, to run concurrently with the sentence rendered in case No. SWF020579.
On January 4, 2008, defendant filed a letter in the trial court wherein he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. We ruled that defendant’s letter shall be construed as a timely appeal from his conviction and sentence. (Case No. E046277.)
II
Because defendant pled guilty, the statement of facts is taken from the preliminary hearing in case No. SWF020579. The statement of facts in case No. SWF022694 is taken from the declaration in support of the arrest warrant because there was no preliminary hearing in that case.
A. Case No. SWF020579
Defendant, who was on parole from a previous conviction, was living with others in a house in San Jacinto. Defendant slept on the bottom bunk of a bunk bed. On March 21, 2007, during a parole search of defendant’s room, a parole officer found a handgun in a box under defendant’s bed, and two bullets in a dresser drawer in the room. The gun, which had no bullets, was not registered to defendant.
Defendant had been a member of the Varrio Coachella Rifa, which was considered a criminal street gang in Coachella. San Jacinto is 60 miles away from Varrio Coachella Rifa’s “turf.”
B. Case No. SWF022694
On August 5, 2007, defendant was being held in the Southwest Detention Center. Defendant told Deputy Aubrey Kollatschny, “Guess what? I am GP now, so I will catch you in the sally port as soon as I can.” The deputy asked defendant if that was a threat. Defendant responded, “You’ll see.”
GP presumably means “General Population.”
C. Sentencing and Post-sentencing Proceedings
Defendant originally pled not guilty to the charges in both cases. On November 13, 2007, the morning of the trial in case No. SWF020579, the court held an off-the-record conference with defendant and his two counsel to discuss case No. SWF020579, and the trailing case, case No. SWF022694. In the course of this unreported conference, the court proposed that defendant plead guilty to both cases in return for specific sentences of five years four months in case No. SWF020579, and 18 months in case No. SWF022695, to run concurrent. Once on the record, defendant pled guilty to the charges, and the trial court imposed the sentence as proposed.
Following the sentence, defendant sent the court a letter, asking to withdraw his guilty plea and to go to trial. Defendant stated as follows:
“I entered guilty pleas in both cases under extreme pressure from both the court and my attorneys, Roberto Deaztlan and Sam Vanderbrug, respectively. I was not in full agreement with the terms and conditions of either plea agreement and feel neither was in my best interest. I was also threatened with maximum exposure by the court if I didn’t accept the plea agreements. In addition, I believe I was unlawfully sentenced in these cases. [¶] I am formally requesting to withdraw my guilty pleas on case Nos. SWF020579 and SWF022694 and would like to proceed on both cases.”
On January 8, 2008, the superior court clerk responded as follows:
“The court has received your correspondence requesting modification of pleas rendered in the matters described above. You would be advised to confer with the defense attorney who represented you on your case in order to resolve these matters.... [¶] You may wish to contact the defense attorney assigned to your case if you have further questions.”
On February 21, 2008, the trial court held an ex parte hearing in which it read defendant’s letter, denied defendant’s motion without prejudice, and directed that the letter be forward to defendant’s attorneys on the two cases. No further action was taken regarding the letter at the trial court.
Defendant’s letter was deemed to be his notice of appeal.
III
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, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli, J., King, J.