P. v. Riddle










Filed 3/21/17 P. v. Riddle 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

JOHN WADE RIDDLE, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.


F073222

(Super. Ct. No. MF011877B)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Cory J. Woodward and Kenneth G. Pritchard, Judge.†
Carol Foster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
John Wade Riddle, Jr. appeals from a conviction for receiving stolen property after he entered a no contest plea to the charge pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement. Appellate counsel failed to identify any arguable issues after reviewing the record. We agree there are no arguable issues in the case and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The first amended complaint[1] charged Riddle and two codefendants, Larry Dutch Broitzmann and Falcon Winters, with grand theft. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).)[2] The record suggests Winters and Riddle were engaged or married. This count also alleged Riddle had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). A second count charged only Riddle with receiving stolen property, as well as the same two prior prison sentences. (§ 496, subd. (a).)
A plea agreement was reached wherein Riddle agreed to plead guilty (or no contest) to the receiving stolen property count and admit the prior prison term enhancements. He would also admit the value of the property exceeded $950. In exchange, he would be sentenced to three years in jail, and two years on mandatory supervision. The grand theft count would be dismissed.
Riddle signed a “PLEA FORM, WITH EXPLANATIONS AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS–FELONY,” which contained the terms of the agreement. The trial court confirmed Riddle had signed and initialed the form as required to indicate he understood the information in the corresponding paragraphs of the form. Riddle confirmed he did not have any questions about the form, or the terms of the agreement. Riddle then pled no contest to the second count and admitted the prior prison term enhancements. Riddle was subsequently sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asserting that after thoroughly reviewing the record, she could not identify any arguable issues. By letter dated May 20, 2015, we invited Riddle to advise this court of any issues he wished to raise. Riddle did not respond to our invitation.
We agree with appellate counsel that there are no arguable issues in this case. Riddle entered into a plea agreement at an early stage of the proceeding. He was fully advised of his statutory and constitutional rights, the parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea, and he was sentenced to the agreed upon term.
At the sentencing hearing, and in his request for a certificate of probable cause, Riddle essentially asserts he was coerced into accepting the plea agreement so that Winter would not be arrested. He also asserts defense counsel had done nothing to assist his defense.
The plea agreement form signed by Riddle belies his coercion claim. On the form, Riddle signed directly below a statement requiring him to acknowledge he had read the form, discussed each item with his attorney, he understood the form, and the nature of the charges, defenses and consequences had been explained to him. He also initialed in the box adjacent to the paragraph that confirmed he freely and voluntarily entered into the plea.
We also note that any complaint about the effectiveness of defense counsel would be difficult to establish since Riddle entered his plea before the preliminary hearing, an early stage of the proceedings.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com


* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

† Judge Woodward accepted defendant’s plea; Judge Pritchard sentenced defendant.

[1] It appears the complaint was orally amended at the sentencing plea hearing, which occurred on December 18, 2015. The first amended complaint was filed on December 21, 2015. We refer to the written first amended complaint to ease the reader’s task.

[2] All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.