P. v. Celes
Filed 1/24/13
P. v. Celes CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JASON ALLEN CELES,
Defendant and Appellant.
F063377
(Super. Ct. No. 1434876)
O P I N I O N
THE COURT
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Marie Sovey Silveira, Judge.
Joshua G.
Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney
General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On August
4, 2011,
Celes, pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and the court dismissed one “strike†allegation
Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) allegations.
Shortly thereafter, in that same proceeding, appellant waived his right
to a presentence report, and the court imposed the agreed-upon prison term of
two years.
Prior to appellant
entering his plea, the prosecutor, in response to the court’s request for a
statement of the factual basis for the plea, stated the following: On July 25, appellant was “found to possess,
on his person, a pink baggy of suspected methamphetamine.†Subsequently, testing at a California
Department of Justice laboratory revealed that “the substance was found to
contain .37 grams net of methamphetamine, a usable quantity.â€
At a
hearing on September 19, the court noted that appellant was incarcerated in
state prison and that he had indicated that he wanted to withdraw his
plea. The court ordered the deputy
district attorney to prepare a production order so that appellant could be
brought to court, and set a hearing for September 30.
On
September 26, appellant filed a notice of
appeal and requested that the court issue a certificate of probable cause
(Pen. Code, § 1237.5). The court granted
the request. In his request for a certificate of probable cause, appellant
asserted that he had been denied his right to the effective assistance of
counsel.
On
September 30, appellant appeared in court with counsel, at which time the court
stated that in order for it to consider a motion
to withdraw appellant’s plea, the court would need to conduct a
proceeding immediately with the Marsden
hearing or holding it the following week.
Appellant chose to proceed immediately, at which point, the court, with
only appellant, counsel and court personnel present, conducted a
counsel, the court denied appellant’s Marsden
motion and his motion to withdraw his plea.
The court reiterated its rulings in open court moments later.
On April 25, 2012, appellant’s
appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief which summarizes the
pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that
this court independently review the record.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not
responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
On May 14,
2012, this court ordered that appellant’s notice of appeal be treated as having
been filed immediately after the September 30 rulings, thereby making those
rulings reviewable on appeal.
Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues
exist.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] Except
as otherwise indicated, all references to dates of events are to dates in 2011.
