P. v. Paul
Filed 3/15/13 P. v. Paul CA1/1
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROBERT
PAUL,
Defendant and Appellant.
A136635
(County
of Mendocino
Super. Ct.
No. SCUK-CRCR 12-21083-02)
Defendant appeals from pleas of no
contest pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). His request for a
by the trial court on September 18, 2012.
Appellant was charged in an
information with battery on a peace officer
(Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (c)(2)), resisting
an officer (Pen. Code, § 69), possession of methamphetamine (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor crime of giving a false name to
a policeman (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)).
The information alleged a great bodily injury enhancement pursuant to
Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a)
regarding the battery and resisting counts. On June 14, 2012, the possession of methamphetamine charge in
count III was reduced to a misdemeanor, and appellant entered no contest pleas
to all counts, and admitted the enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.7.
On July 27, 2012, appellant was sentenced to five years in
midterm sentence on the battery charge in count I, with a consecutive
three-year term for the 12022.7 enhancement.
The terms for the resisting offense in count II and its enhancement were
stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.
A six-month concurrent term was imposed on the misdemeanor possession
offense as well as the false identification charge.
Appellant filed his notice of appeal
on September 14, 2012. His request for a certificate
of probable cause was denied.
Appellate counsel has reviewed the
file in this case and has determined there are no meritorious issues to raise
on appeal. She has complied with the
relevant case authorities. (
436.) Defendant was notified of his
right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon independent review of the record, we
conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the
judgment.
We have reviewed the record in this
case. A hearing based on
was conducted a week before the plea. A
review of the proceedings indicates appellant was concerned about a lack of
communication between himself and trial counsel. At the time, the trial counsel had been
engaged in a homicide trial. He
indicated he was now focusing on appellant’s matter. At the end of the hearing, appellant advised
the court he was satisfied with the hearing.
No further challenge based on Marsden
was presented during the history of the case.
The trial court properly questioned
the appellant before accepting his pleas of no contest and admission of the
enhancement. The court specifically
asked appellant if he had had sufficient time to discuss the pleas with his
trial counsel, the same attorney he had during the Marsden hearing. Appellant
indicated he had. Also, the court
directly asked appellant if he had any questions with the court before entering
his pleas, and appellant indicated he did not nor did he need to discuss the
entry of pleas with counsel before he in fact pleaded no contest to the
charges.
In this instance the trial court did
not make a finding of probable cause.
Appellant made a request based on the issues presented in his
evidence of great bodily injury. We have
already addressed the first contention.
Regarding the issue of the enhancement, the injured officer suffered a
separated shoulder as a result of the struggle with appellant. He was unable to
return to full duty for a minimum of six months. Additionally, appellant admitted the
enhancement was true when he entered his no contest plea.
Under People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1095, a review of a plea
is permitted if a court has issued a certificate
of probable cause. Otherwise, an
appellant cannot appeal a nolo plea challenging the legality of the plea
process. This rule seeks to ensure
judicial economy. Under the facts of
this case, we adopt this rationale without hesitation.
We affirm the judgment.
__________________________________
Dondero,
J.
We
concur:
__________________________________
Margulies,
Acting P. J.
__________________________________
Banke,
J.
