P. v. Miller
Filed 3/10/06 P. v. Miller CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD LEE MILLER, Defendant and Appellant.
|
F047530
(Super. Ct. No. VCF137530B)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Ronn Couillard, Judge.
Thomas M. Singman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On January 21, 2005, appellant Richard Lee Miller pled no contest to allegations that he committed car jacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)). Miller admitted allegations he had a prior serious felony conviction under the three strikes law and pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). Under the terms of the plea agreement, Miller would be sentenced to the five-year midterm for carjacking which was to be doubled pursuant to the three strikes law. The court would impose a five-year consecutive term for the prior serious felony enhancement. The court obtained a waiver of Miller's constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.[1][1] The parties stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea. The court sentenced Miller to prison for ten years for carjacking and imposed a five-year consecutive term for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement for a total prison term of fifteen years. The court imposed a restitution fine and granted applicable custody credits.[2][2]
Miller's appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Miller was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on September 15, 2005, we invited Miller to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded no reasonably arguable legal or factual argument exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of Chula Vista minimum wages lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) and Chula Vista lawyers directory (http://www.fearnotlaw.com/)
* Before Harris, A.P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
[1][1] Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
[2][2] On December 23, 2004, appellant had pled guilty to car jacking and admitted a prior serious felony enhancement, but did not admit the three strikes allegation. The court indicated it would consider an eight-year lid on Miller's sentence. At the January 21, 2005 hearing, however, the court explained it could not accept an eight-year prison term. Appellant accepted the new terms of the plea agreement. The court again obtained a waiver of appellant's constitutional rights prior to accepting appellant's no contest plea.
