P. v. Fielding
Filed 6/26/12 P. v.
Fielding CA3
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Yuba)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANGEL MIGUEL FIELDING,
Defendant and Appellant.
C069570
(Super.
Ct. No. CRF 11-393)
This case comes to
us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (
record as required by Wende, we
affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description
of the facts and procedural history of the case. (Kelly,
On July 25, 2011, 18-year-old
defendant Angel Miguel Fielding was found by officers in the carport outside
the apartment where a man and his 17-year-old daughter lived. Defendant had red, watery eyes, slurred
speech and an odor of alcohol on his person.
Defendant had previously dated the daughter; when the relationship
ended, defendant showed up unannounced and uninvited at their residence. One time, he was found in the daughter’s
bedroom with a BB gun. He also left
several harassing messages on her phone, and threatened to shoot her after he
had been arrested for trespassing at
her apartment.
Defendant entered
a plea of no contest to stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a).). Defendant also entered a plea of no contest
to second degree burglary (vehicle), a misdemeanor, in another case (CRM
11-643). Defendant entered his pleas in
exchange for dismissal of pending charges in two other cases (CRM 11-722:
loitering or prowling on private property and public intoxication,
misdemeanors; and CRM 11-606: aggravated trespass and public intoxication,
misdemeanors) with a waiver pursuant to People v.
Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The remaining count (first degree burglary) in the present case was
dismissed.
The day before
sentencing, defendant personally wrote to the court, asking to withdraw his
plea. At sentencing, defense counsel
commented that he found no legal basis for defendant to withdraw his plea. Counsel noted that although defendant first
said he wanted to withdraw his plea, he then said he “just [wanted] a
rehabilitation program.” When the court
asked, defendant had nothing to add. Having
read the letter, the court found no basis to appoint conflict counsel, describing
defendant’s letter as expressing “buyer’s remorse.”
The court denied
probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of two years
for stalking. The court ordered
defendant to pay a $400 restitution fine, a $400 parole revocation restitution
fine, a $30 criminal conviction assessment, a $40 court security fee, and $300
in victim restitution to the daughter’s father for the cost of replacing a
broken window and screen caused when defendant broke into their apartment. The court awarded 33 actual days and
33 conduct days for a total of 66 days of presentence custody
credit.
Defendant
appeals. The trial court denied
defendant’s request for a certificate of
probable cause. (Pen. Code,
§ 1237.5.)
We appointed
appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental
brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have
received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is
affirmed.
MURRAY , J.
We concur:
ROBIE , Acting P. J.
BUTZ , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Defendant asked to “pull” his plea. Defendant stated that he made a mistake by
pleading guilty, it was the wrong decision, he has a drinking problem and needs
help, the current offense would not have happened if he had not been drinking,
and probation recommended two years but he wanted to go to a rehabilitation
program because prison would not help him.
He asked for mercy.
