P. v. Sowell















Filed 7/9/12 P. v. Sowell CA4/3









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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION THREE




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TREMAINE JATARI SOWELL, Defendant and Appellant.

G046012 (Super. Ct. No. 11HF2478) O P I N I O N

Appeal
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Stephanie George, Judge.
Affirmed.

Mark
Yanis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.



* * *



Defendant Tremaine
Jatari Sowell pleaded guilty to receiving
stolen property. (Pen. Code,
§ 496, subd. (a).) The court
dismissed a misdemeanor charge of second degree burglary (Pen. Code,
§§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and obtaining an access card with the intent to
defraud. (Pen. Code, § 484e, subd.
(a).) Sentence was suspended and the
court put defendant on three years’ formal probation and ordered he serve 365
days in jail. He was given 30 days’
actual and 30 days’ conduct credits.

After
defendant appealed we appointed counsel
to represent him. Counsel filed a
brief that set forth the facts of the case and the disposition. He did not argue against defendant but
advised the court he had not found any arguments to present on defendant’s
behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) He suggested two issues to assist us in our href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">independent review of the record.

First,
was there a sufficient factual basis to support his plea? The only facts in the record are those in the
guilty plea where defendant admitted to knowingly receiving stolen
property. This was sufficient to support
the plea. Second, did defendant
knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights? The plea agreement detailed all of the
constitutional rights to which defendant was entitled and was giving up. Defendant initialed each one and his lawyer
signed the agreement stating she had advised him of each of the rights
waived. At the plea hearing the court
inquired if defendant understood he was waiving all of those rights and
defendant answered in the affirmative.
The only requirement is that defendant expressly waive the rights, not
that he do so orally. (>People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68,
80, 84.) There is nothing in the record
to suggest defendant did not understand the rights or his waiver.

Defendant
was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf, which he did
not. We examined the entire record to
determine if any arguable issues were present, including those suggested by
counsel, and found none. (>People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp.
441-442; People v. Johnson (1981) 123
Cal.App.3d 106, 111-112.)



The judgment is affirmed.









RYLAARSDAM,
ACTING P. J.



WE CONCUR:







BEDSWORTH, J.







MOORE, J.