P. v. Godfrey
Filed 6/5/09 P. v. Godfrey CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. GLENN GODFREY, Defendant and Appellant. | F056410 (Super. Ct. No. F06909236) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Rosendo Pena, Jr., Judge.
Syda Kosofsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
PROCEEDINGS
On November 22, 2006, appellant, Glenn Godfrey, was initially charged in a criminal complaint with three felony counts. On April 24, 2007, a second amended consolidated criminal complaint was filed alleging 13 felony counts and a number of enhancements. During the early stages of these actions, appellant sought continuances and waived statutory and speedy trial time limits.[1]
Appellants preliminary hearing was conducted on August 2, 2007. An information was filed alleging eleven felony counts, a great bodily injury enhancement, a weapon enhancement and four prior prison term enhancements. On August 17, 2007, appellant pled not guilty to all counts. Between September 27, 2007 and April 3, 2008, trial setting was continued and appellant generally waived time. On April 10, 2008, the time set for trial was vacated. The matter was continued until August 28, 2008. During this time, appellant entered general time waivers.
On August 28, 2008, appellant entered into a plea agreement and a felony advisement, waiver of rights and plea form (plea form). In the plea form, appellant acknowledged and waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.[2] He also acknowledged the consequences of his plea and that there was a factual basis to his plea. The attorneys set forth the terms of the plea agreement. Appellant would admit allegations of robbery (Pen. Code, 211, count one),[3]a weapon enhancement related to the robbery ( 12022, subd. (b)(1)), assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1), amended allegation from count two), unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a), count four), unlawful evasion of a peace officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a), count seven) and three prior prison term enhancements ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant would receive a term of three years on count one. The trial court would sentence appellant to consecutive terms of one year for the weapon enhancement, one year on count two, a term of eight months on count four and three years for the prison term enhancements. Appellant would receive a concurrent term of two years on count seven. Appellants total prison term would be eight years eight months.
The trial court advised appellant of the consequences of his plea, established appellant understood the terms of the plea agreement and had enough time to consult with his attorney. Appellant acknowledged executing the plea form and having no questions concerning its contents or the consequences of his plea. The court then advised appellant of, and appellant waived, his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl. The defense attorney, prosecutor and appellant stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
Appellant pled no contest to counts one, two, four and seven. Appellant admitted the weapon enhancement and three prison term enhancements. The trial court granted the prosecutors motion to dismiss the remaining allegations.[4]
On September 29, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant according to the terms of the plea agreement to a prison term of eight years eight months. The court awarded 769 days of custody credits and imposed a restitution fine of $1,600. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on October 29, 2008. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
On November 10, 2006, the victim was carrying a duffle bag with $18,000 in cash. Appellant drove up to the victim in a pickup truck and struck the victim twice on the head and on the forearm with a baseball bat causing the victim to drop the duffle bag. Appellant picked up the duffle bag and left in the pickup truck. The victim identified appellant as the perpetrator to a police officer. On November 14, 2006, sheriff deputies noticed a pickup truck that had been reported as stolen. Appellant and a female companion exited a residence and drove away in the truck. When the deputies followed appellant, he drove through a red light and evaded them.
December 1, 2006, the deputies received information concerning the whereabouts of appellants female companion. The deputies witnessed a Chevrolet truck pick up the companion. Appellant passed the deputies driving at 70 miles per hour before accelerating to over 100 miles per hour. When a deputys patrol car hit appellants car from behind, appellant was forced into the air and landed on another patrol vehicle before stopping in soft dirt. Appellant attempted to flee on foot before he was captured and arrested after physically resisting the deputies.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellants 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 appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on February 9, 2009, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.
[1] This complaint was consolidated from two criminal complaints filed in case Nos. F06501426 and F06909236 originally filed, respectively, in November 2006 and December 2006.
[2]Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Boykin/Tahl).
[3] Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[4] The dismissed allegations were as follows: assault with a deadly weapon ( 245, subd. (a)(1), count three), two counts of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a), counts five & six), two counts of offering to bribe a witness ( 138, subd. (a), counts eight & nine), solicitation to commit a crime ( 653f, subd. (a), count ten) and possession of ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1), count eleven). The information also alleged a great bodily injury enhancement ( 12022.7, subd. (a) as to count one and a fourth prior prison term enhancement.
