P. v.
Filed 5/14/13 P. v. Taylor 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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
WILLIAM V.
TAYLOR,
Defendant and Appellant.
A137719
(Mendocino
County Super.
Ct.
No. SCUKCRCR12214532)
Defendant
appeals from a judgment entered on his plea of no contest. His counsel has asked this court for an
determine whether there are any arguable issues (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436), and has noted an area in the
record that might arguably support the appeal (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738).
Defendant
was originally charged by information with violations of
§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)),
and attempted robbery in concert
(§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a), 213, subd. (a)(1)(A), 664), with allegations
that he personally used deadly weapons (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and that
he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The charges arose from an attempted home
invasion robbery, where the victim was beaten with a crowbar and stabbed with a
knife. The victim suffered
defendant. The victim identified
defendant as one of the individuals who struck him with a crowbar and stabbed
him.
Pursuant
to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted the allegation that he inflicted great
bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The agreed-upon sentence was seven years in
state prison.
title="">[4] Prior to sentencing, defendant indicated that
he wished to withdraw his plea, on the grounds that he was not adequately
advised of the consequences. The trial
court appointed new counsel to represent defendant for this potential
motion. Defendant’s new attorney
investigated the issue and subsequently informed the court that he found no
grounds upon which to base a motion to withdraw the plea. The court denied defendant’s request to
withdraw his plea. Defendant was
sentenced to seven years in state prison.
Defendant obtained a certificate of
probable cause permitting him to challenge the denial of his motion to
withdraw his plea on the grounds that he did not understand the consequences of
his plea.
Before
accepting defendant’s plea, the court advised him of all the constitutional
rights he would waive by entry of the plea, and the agreed-upon sentence he
would receive. The court found a factual
basis for the plea, and indicated that it was voluntary. Defendant was represented by counsel
throughout the proceedings. There was no
error in the entry of the plea, nor in the denial of the motion to withdraw it. Separate counsel appointed by the court to
assess defendant’s request to withdraw his plea found no basis for such a
motion.
on appeal.
The
judgment is affirmed.
______________________
Sepulveda, J.*
We concur:
______________________
Margulies, Acting P.J.
______________________
Dondero, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of
the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
issue being whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying
defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.
further references are to the Penal Code.
