Opinion
E081527
06-17-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERNEST LEROY DAVIS III, Defendant and Appellant.
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. BLF2200239 Jeffrey M. Zimel, Judge. Affirmed.
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER ACTING P. J.
On March 30, 2023, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Ernest Leroy Davis III of six counts of narcotics and firearms offenses related to operating a drug house in Blythe for the sale of fentanyl and methamphetamine. (Health &Saf. Code, §§ 11366 (count 1), 11351 (count 2), 11378 (count 3), 11370.1 (count 4); Pen. Code, §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1) (count 5), 30305, subd. (a)(1) (count 6).) The jury found a personal arming enhancement true as to counts 2 and 3. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c).) In a bifurcated trial, the jury also found several alleged aggravating factors true under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421, including: planning or sophistication in carrying out the crime, the crime involved a large quantity of contraband, defendant served a prior prison or jail term, his convictions were of increasing seriousness, and his prior performance on probation or under other supervision was unsatisfactory.
Immediately upon dismissal of the jury, defendant sought to "settle" two other pending felony cases and three misdemeanor matters. The trial court indicated that upon entry of guilty pleas in the other actions, it would sentence defendant to 13 years eight months as the total prison term both for the offenses resolved by the jury trial and for the unspecified felony counts in his two pending cases, plus "concurrent time" for the pending misdemeanors. Of the total term of 13 years eight months, as defendant considered whether to plead guilty to the pending felony and misdemeanor counts, the trial court's posttrial indicated sentence for the offenses on which defendant had just been convicted remained the same as the court suggested before the trial: seven years eight months. The prosecutor objected, noting that defendant, "instead of taking early responsibility for his actions, decided to go to trial, so I would object to it being the same court-indicated."
The case numbers for the pending felony matters were BLF1900132 and BLF2200136, and for the misdemeanors: BLM2100459, BLM2000608, and BLM2000573.
Addressing defendant, the court advised him the evidence shown at trial was "definitely worse than what I thought" pretrial: "there was more going on-more drugs, more sales, so it's aggravating in that fashion. [¶] I think . . . [y]ou're in a worse position now, because I heard everything." Nevertheless, the court in holding the same indicated sentence open for defendant as part of the global plea deal explained that "the original court-indicated included . . . two out-on-bail allegations," to which the People had "conceded" dismissal.
Defendant's outstanding felony and misdemeanor counts were pending in another courtroom before a different bench officer the next day. Defendant entered guilty pleas in those proceedings, and at the ensuing sentencing hearing the trial court honored its global indicated sentence. Namely, the court imposed a total term of 13 years eight months for the charges resolved in the jury trial, case No. BLF2200239, and in the other two felony cases, case Nos. BLF1900132 and BLF2200136. As the court previously explained, the global sentence was comprised of consecutive terms of "seven years and eight months [for] the one you just got convicted on," then four years four months for "[t]he case ending in -132," and one year eight months for the one "ending in -136." The court explained the application of defendant's custody and good behavior credits as follows: "If you got concurrent sentences, then it would count against each sentence. But if it's consecutive, it only counts once [against the total sentence], your credits."
Defendant filed a notice of appeal following the sentencing hearing and this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel's review of the record uncovered no arguable issues, including after consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [threshold for "an arguable issue" requires "a reasonable potential for success"]; see also Redante v. Yockelson (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356 [counsel cannot contrive arguable issues].) Counsel therefore 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 facts, a statement of the case, and requesting that we independently review the record. Counsel did not suggest any potential issues for us to review her conclusion the record was devoid of arguable issues. Defendant did not respond to notice of his opportunity to file a supplemental brief.
Having examined the record and completed our independent review (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106), we find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
We concur: CODRINGTON, J., RAPHAEL, J.