P. v. Martinez
Filed 8/8/12 P.
v. Martinez CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
EDWARD L.
MARTINEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
A134055
(Sonoma County
Super. Ct. No. SCR-606447)
Defendant
Edward L. Martinez appeals from a three-year, suspended prison sentence he
received, which included, subject to local custody credits, a 12-month term in
the county jail, following his plea of no contest to
§ 211). Defendant’s counsel has
raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to
determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (
436.) Defendant was notified of his
raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention, but has not
done so. Having conducted the requested
review, we conclude there are no errors or arguable issues for review, and
thus, affirm the judgment.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The
underlying facts are derived from the probation report. On August 8, 2011, at approximately 10:30
p.m., Sonoma
County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a report of an assault at the Santa
Rosa Mobile Park. When the deputies
arrived at the scene, they found the victim inside his residence, with a
sitting in his reclining chair that afternoon and fell asleep at approximately
3:00 p.m. The victim said that, at the
time he fell asleep, he was alone in his residence and his front door was
unlocked. When the victim awoke at 7:00
p.m., he stood up and noticed that he was bleeding from his head. He claimed he did not know how he became
injured or who was responsible. While
speaking to the deputies, the victim noticed that his wallet was missing from
the living room. He also discovered that
he was missing approximately $7,000 in cash that had been in his front pants
pocket when he fell asleep.
Evidence
of drug and alcohol use was found in the trailer. The victim was transported to the hospital
for treatment of his head injury.
The
victim’s neighbor told police that the victim frequently had people staying at
his trailer and that the victim “was known to carry a few thousand dollars on
his person at all times.” The neighbor
said that the prior evening he “ran [off]” defendant and defendant’s brother
from the victim’s residence. The
neighbor indicated that defendant and his brother frequented the victim’s
residence, and they often used drugs with the victim there.
A
second neighbor said that at approximately 3:00 p.m. on the day of the
incident, he saw defendant’s brother driving the victim’s vehicle.
The
deputies located defendant in a field behind the trailer park, living in a
small homeless camp. His camp was
searched, but no evidence tying him to the robbery was found. Evidence of drug and alcohol use was found
next to a makeshift bed area. Defendant
was arrested for two probation violations and taken to the county jail.
On
August 10, 2011, detectives contacted the victim at the hospital and conducted
a second interview. The victim disclosed
that on the day of the incident, he had told defendant and his brother that
they could no longer come to his residence, or the victim “would be kicked out
of the trailer park by management.” The
victim said that defendant “became very angry, withdrew a short-barreled
shotgun from his person, and pointed it at [the victim’s] head while yelling at
him.” The victim, however, maintained
that he did not know who robbed him or who hit him on the head.
That
same day, at approximately 4:00 p.m., detectives located and detained
defendant’s brother, who had in his possession a motel room key. When detectives went to the motel, they found
defendant, who had been released from jail the prior day. Defendant was advised of his
rights and ultimately agreed to talk to the detectives, stating that he was
a “ ‘witness.’ ” Initially,
defendant denied being in or near the victim’s residence at the time in
question. He further denied having any
knowledge about a shotgun. When a
detective told defendant that he knew defendant had a shotgun and had been
inside the victim’s residence on the day of the incident, defendant paused,
then stated, “ ‘Wait a second, you’re right, I was there.’ ” Defendant, however, denied any involvement in
the robbery. When advised that he was
being placed under arrest, defendant said, “ ‘You’re not going to take me
alive.’ ” He vehemently resisted
arrest, but was eventually restrained by several detectives.
On
October 14, 2011, defendant was charged by first amended information with one
count of robbery (§ 211) and one count of assault with a deadly weapon
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The
first amended information also alleged that defendant had suffered a prior
serious felony conviction for robbery in 1989 (§§ 211, 667.5, subd. (a),
1170.12), as well as a prior conviction in 1997 for smuggling a firearm or
deadly weapon into prison or jail
(§ 4574, subd. (a)). That same
day, defendant entered a plea agreement and pleaded no contest to the robbery
count. The prosecutor dismissed the
remaining count against defendant and the enhancement allegations against
him. Pursuant to the stipulated
agreement, defendant was to receive a three-year suspended sentence and be
granted formal probation, with a term in the county jail to be determined by
the court at sentencing. At this time,
defendant also admitted to violating his probation in two other cases; the
trial court then revoked defendant’s probation in those cases.
On
November 15, 2011, defendant was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence
and placed on formal probation for 36 months, subject to various
conditions. He was ordered to spend 12
months in the county jail and to pay various fees and fines, including a restitution
fine of $220, which included a 10 percent administrative fee. A parole revocation fine of $200 was imposed
and suspended. By stipulation, defendant
was ordered to pay $7,000 in victim restitution.
With
respect to defendant’s two prior probation violations, defendant was sentenced
to one year in custody for the first violation, to run consecutively to the
term previously imposed, subject to local custody credits. As to the second probation violation,
defendant was sentenced to six months in custody, to run consecutively to the
prior two terms previously imposed, subject to local custody credits. At this point in the hearing, defendant
commented, “So, that’s two and a half years” and inquired if he could get a
work release or another jail alternative.
The trial court denied the request for work release and all jail
alternatives, noting that it had never contemplated such options in agreeing to
the sentence imposed.
At
the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court asked defendant if he accepted
the terms and conditions of his probation.
Defendant replied, “I kind of want to withdraw my plea, your
Honor.” The court then concluded the
hearing, stating, “Well, I can certainly understand, and so we’ve concluded
this matter. I wish you the best of
luck.”
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
filed a notice of appeal, alleging sentencing error and purporting to raise
“[a]ny and all legal grounds.” The
record, however, does not contain a certificate of probable cause. Absent a certificate of probable cause, a
defendant cannot challenge the validity of a no contest plea on appeal. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.304(b); People v. Cuevas (2008) 44
Cal.4th 374, 377.) Thus, to the extent
defendant seeks to challenge his no contest plea, such claim is not subject to
our review due to the failure to comply with rule 8.304(b) of the California
Rules of Court and section 1237.5.
Nonetheless, we have reviewed the entire record in this case in our
discretion and in the interest of justice, and find no meritorious issues to be
argued, or that require further briefing on appeal regarding the validity of
the plea or the sentence imposed.
Specifically, no error appears in
the entry of defendant’s plea, in the implied denial of defendant’s equivocal
request to withdraw his plea once sentence was pronounced, or in the sentencing
proceedings. Defendant was advised of
his constitutional rights prior to the entry of his plea, as well as the
consequences of his plea, including that he would be required to serve time in the
county jail, with the term being determined by the court. The court found the plea to be free and
voluntary, that defendant had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his
constitutional rights, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. Defendant was adequately represented by legal
counsel throughout the proceedings.
“When a defendant is represented by counsel, the grant or denial of an
application to withdraw a plea is purely within the discretion of the trial
court after consideration of all factors necessary to bring about a just
result. [Citations.] On appeal, the trial court’s decision will be
upheld unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion. [Citations.]”
(People v. Shaw (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 492, 495-496; see also People
v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4th 432, 442-443; People v. Sandoval (2006)
140 Cal.App.4th 111, 123.) Here, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to
withdraw his plea.
Further, the sentencing choices made
by the trial court were consistent with applicable law, supported by
substantial evidence, and were well within the discretion of the trial
court. The restitution fines and
penalties imposed were supported by the law and facts.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Sepulveda,
J.*
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P. J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
*
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate
District, Division 4, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.
All further undesignated
statutory references are to the Penal Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Miranda
v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
