Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Salinas CA1/2
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JASON SALINAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
A136939
(Napa
County
Super. Ct.
No. CR161358)
Appellant pled no
contest to one count of sale of a controlled substance, but then failed to keep
an appointment with a probation officer and, later, also failed to appear in
court for his scheduled sentencing hearing. He was sentenced to a three-year midterm for
that conviction plus two one-year terms for prison priors. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), he appeals and asks this court to determine if there are
any “post-plea sentencing†issues deserving of further briefing. We find none and hence affirm both the
judgment and the sentence imposed
On
April 3, 2012, the Napa
Special Investigation Bureau (NSIB) arranged for an informant to make a “buyâ€
of methamphetamine from appellant. The
informant was outfitted with a recorder and transmitting device and provided
with $60 in NSIB money. As previously
arranged, the informant met appellant at a designated intersection in Napa. The NSIB agents watched their meeting and
observed appellant hand the informant an item, which turned out to be 1.5 grams
of methamphetamine. The meeting of the
two men was recorded by devices supplied to the informant by the NSIB.
On
June 28, 2012,
the Napa County
grand jury returned a first amended indictment charging appellant with one
count of sale of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section
11379, subdivision (a), and also alleging that appellant had served two prison
priors pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5.
The
following day, June 29, appellant, who was represented by counsel and had
received and executed a written waiver of his rights, entered a no contest plea
to the charge and also admitted the prior prison term convictions. Under the plea agreement, appellant could
receive a maximum term of four years, the upper term on the one count charged,
plus one year each for the two prison priors, for a total of six years. However, at that hearing, it was also
explicitly agreed that if appellant failed to make or keep an appointment with
a probation officer or failed to appear at his sentencing hearing or
reoffended, the plea would become an “open plea†and he could receive a more
severe sentence. Appellant was then
released on his own recognizance.
Appellant
was originally scheduled to meet with a probation officer on July 17, but then
rescheduled that appointment to July 20.
He failed to appear for it, however. He also failed to appear at the
scheduled sentencing hearing on August 13.
When
a sentencing hearing did take place,
with appellant present, on September 26, the court denied him probation and
sentenced him to a five-year term composed of a three-year midterm for the one
count charged and two one-year terms for the two prison priors. He was sentenced, under Penal Code section
1170, subdivision (h), to serve three of
those years in the
jail, with the other two years being suspended but to be served under mandatory
supervision.
On
October 24, appellant filed a timely notice
of appeal.
III. DISCUSSION
In
the view of the facts set forth above, we find no issues regarding the sentence
imposed on appellant which are deserving of further briefing under the holding
of Wende.
The
judgment, including the sentence imposed, is affirmed.
_________________________
Haerle,
Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Lambden, J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1]
All further dates noted are in 2012.
