P. v. Frame
Filed 9/30/11 P. v. Frame CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON LEE FRAME, Defendant and Appellant. | A131724 (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR919690) |
Brandon Lee Frame (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459[1]). Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
A information was filed December 10, 2009, charging appellant with: (1) robbery perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling (§ 211, count 1); (2) first degree burglary (§ 459, count 2); (3) criminal threats (§ 422, count 3), (4) assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 4); (5) theft from a person (§ 487, subd. (c), count 5); (6) battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count 6); and (7) malicious interference with a telephone line or apparatus (§ 591, count 7). The information further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that the offense was a serious and violent felony (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c), 667.5, subd. (c)), and alleged as to counts 3, 4 and 6, that the offense was a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)). The information alleged as to count 1 that appellant voluntarily acted in concert in committing the offense (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and alleged as to count 2 that probation would not be granted except “in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served” (§ 462, subd. (a)).
The information was based on an incident that occurred on June 27, 2009. That night, deputy sheriffs responded to the report of an assault and theft in Kelseyville. The victim said he was home alone on his computer in his bedroom when two men kicked his bedroom door open and asked him where his (the victim’s) brother was. The victim lived with his brother but his brother was not home at the time. One of the men, later identified as appellant, punched the victim in the face “more than once” with a closed fist. Appellant was armed with a rubber mallet and brandished it at the victim in a threatening manner and told him not to move. He then kicked the victim in the head and told him he had 90 seconds to take the computer apart so that he could take it. Appellant asked if there was a telephone, and the victim responded there was one in the living room or kitchen. Appellant called out into the living room area of the house to have the phone disconnected. Later, when the victim tried to use the phone, he found that the phone line had been broken.
The victim did not know the two men who kicked his bedroom door in but knew a third man who had also come to the home that night with the other two men. The three men left taking the computer, a glove, a video game system, video games, DVD movies and beer lights that were hanging on the wall. The value of the stolen items was over $1,800. The victim said he believed he was attacked because his brother had recently asked the third man not to socialize at their home anymore. During the investigation, the victim identified appellant from a photographic lineup as the man who hit him and took his computer.
A deputy sheriff arrested appellant and advised him of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), which he said he understood and agreed to waive. Appellant said he had heard about the incident but was not involved and had been with his girlfriend in the early evening and later at another residence. Appellant’s girlfriend confirmed she was with him at the time and said he was drunk that evening. The deputy pressed appellant further and asked if he had ever told anyone even jokingly that he was involved in the incident, and appellant said, “It could be possible, yeah. I’ve heard shit about this the past week and whatnot. But, ugh, nah, I’m pretty—I’m going to say I have to have enough smarts to be like to not joke around [about] something as serious as this thing.” The deputy also interviewed the third man who was at the house that night. The man denied involvement but later acknowledged he was with appellant at the victim’s house. The man said he saw appellant kick down the front door to the home and enter, and that the others took various pieces of property from the house.
On August 11, 2010, appellant executed a waiver of rights form and pleaded guilty to count 2 and admitted the offense was a serious one within the meaning of the three strikes law. Based upon the plea agreement, the trial court dismissed the balance of the complaint with Harvey waivers (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) for restitution purposes as to counts 4 and 5, and sentenced appellant to six years in state prison. The court ordered various fines and fees, including restitution to the victim in the amount of $2,127.81 plus interest, and reserved jurisdiction over further restitution claims.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 2011. He requested a certificate of probable cause stating “the signing of the plea was not of [his] own will.” He stated his attorney was “not willing to revoke [the] plea, or go to trial,” and that he felt he had no choice but to accept the plea because he was told he was going to serve a minimum nine-year sentence if he did not do so. He asserted he was a “productive member of society” and asked for a “chance to prove” himself. The court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
Discussion
We have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues that warrant further briefing. The trial court denied appellant’s request a certificate of probable cause and there is no evidence of good cause to allow him to withdraw his plea. (See People v. Castaneda (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1616-1617 [clear and convincing evidence of good cause required to withdraw a plea].) Appellant was adequately represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. There was a factual basis for the plea. There was no sentencing error. There are no issues that require further briefing.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Pollak, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
