P. v.
Filed 3/4/13 P. v. Temple CA1/3
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
STEVEN
RODELL TEMPLE,
SR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A136772
(Mendocino
County
Super. Ct.
No. SCUKCRCR-12-22989)
Steven
Rodell Temple,
Sr., (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to
dagger) (Pen. Code, § 21310).
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the
record. Appellant was informed of his
did not file such a brief. Having
independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require
further briefing, and affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
A
felony complaint was filed August 9,
2012, charging appellant with carrying a concealed weapon (dirk or
dagger) (Pen. Code, § 21310, count 1). On August 14,
2012, appellant waived his constitutional rights and entered a
guilty plea to the charged offense with the understanding that he would receive
a low term state prison sentence of 16 months. Defense counsel stipulated to the following
factual basis for the plea: “On the 8th
of August of this year, the defendant was contacted in
County by sheriffs deputies. At the
time he had a knife in a sheath in the back of his pants that was
concealed.†Before taking the plea, the
trial court advised appellant that he would have to serve his sentence in state
prison, rather than in county jail. As a
result of the plea, the court found appellant in violation of probation in
another case. Appellant entered an
judge to sentence him than the judge who took his plea.
In
a report dated August 23, 2012, the probation department informed the
court: “Upon further review of this case
the defendant is eligible for sentencing pursuant to Penal Code
Section 1170[, subd. (h)(5)(A)].
The defendant’s juvenile strike was not pled and proven, nor is the
current offense on the exclusion list as of July 01, 2012.â€
At an August 31, 2012
hearing, the parties addressed whether appellant’s prior juvenile strike
adjudication rendered him ineligible for a county jail commitment. The court invited the parties to submit
briefing on the issue before the sentencing
hearing.
At
the sentencing hearing on September 7,
2012, the prosecutor stated that her office agreed with the
probation department that appellant was eligible for a county jail commitment,
and that “this [was] a fair resolution†in light of the facts of the case. The court denied probation and imposed a
16-month sentence to be served in the county jail. The court awarded appellant 62 days of
presentence credits. The court imposed a
$240 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40
court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction fee
(Gov. Code, § 70373), and $175 in attorney fees. The court imposed a concurrent term of
60 days for a trailing misdemeanor matter and terminated probation in that
case as unsuccessful.
Discussion
We
have reviewed the entire record and conclude there are no arguable issues that
warrant further briefing. Appellant has
not sought to withdraw his plea, and in any event, there is no clear and
convincing evidence of good cause to allow him to do so. Appellant was adequately represented by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings.
The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. There was no sentencing error. There are no issues that require further
briefing.
Disposition
The
judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
McGuiness,
P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Siggins, J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
