P. v. Soto

Filed 1/13/10 P. v. Soto CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Appellant William Soto appeals from a judgment and sentence after he pleaded no contest to felony charges, pursuant to a negotiated disposition. His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has informed appellant that he may personally file a supplemental opening brief, but appellant has not done so.

Factual and Procedural Background[1]

On September 25, 2008, at approximately 6:00 a.m., co-defendant Carl Dehnert, appellant and another, unidentified suspect, engaged in an armed home invasion robbery of a house occupied by Carl Dehnerts daughter (Fallon Beddell), her boyfriend (Gerald Sealund) and another couple (Kimberlee McInnis and Brian Mitrick). When Brian Mitrick attempted to dial 911 on his cell phone, appellant threatened him and his girlfriend with a shotgun, stating, If 911 is on the phone Ill kill you.

Appellant was charged by felony complaint with various felony charges and enhancements. On February 2, 2009, he waived his right to a preliminary hearing and, in exchange for a stipulated prison sentence of 13 years eight months, pleaded no contest to one count of first-degree residential burglary (Pen. Code,  459)[2], admitting a gun use enhancement ( 12022.5, subd. (a)), and one count of criminal threats ( 422). Appellant also admitted three prior prison term enhancements (667.5, subd. (b)) and waived referral to probation.

Before entering his plea, appellant was properly admonished regarding the constitutional rights he was waiving in pleading no contest, and the parties stipulated that the police reports formed the factual basis of appellants plea. Appellant was informed that pursuant to his stipulated prison sentence of 13 years eight months, he would be sentenced to the aggravated term of six years for the first-degree residential burglary ( 459), the mid-term of four years for the gun use enhancement, an eight-month consecutive term for the criminal threats count, plus a consecutive one year for each of the prior prison term enhancements.

At the February 3, 2009 sentencing hearing, the court sentenced appellant to 13 years eight months in state prison as agreed. He was ordered to pay a $5,200 restitution fine ( 1202.4), a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8) on each count for a total of $40, and an additional restitution fine ( 1202.45) to be suspended pending completion of parole. The court referred the case to probation for calculation of presentence credits. This appeal followed. Appellant did not apply for, nor obtain, a certificate of probable cause.

Discussion

We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Before accepting appellants plea of no contest, the trial court made sure appellant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving. There was no error in the sentence. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.

We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

JONES, P. J.

SIMONS, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] The background facts are taken from the police reports, which were relied upon for the stipulated factual basis of the plea.

[2] Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.