P. v. Thompson

Filed 11/26/07 P. v. Thompson CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on his plea of no contest. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to four felonies: driving in willful or wanton disregard for safety while fleeing from a police officer (count 1Veh. Code,  2800.2), carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle after having been convicted of a felony (count 2Pen. Code,  12031, subd. (a)(1)(A)), possession of a firearm after being convicted of a felony (count 3Pen. Code,  12021, subd. (a)(1)), and maliciously damaging real property in an amount over $400 (count 4Pen. Code,

 594), and admitted an alleged strike prior conviction (Pen. Code,  1170.12, subd. (c)(1).^[1] Defendant was sentenced to 12 years in state prison.^[2] The charged offenses arose from a high speed chase of defendants car by the East Palo Alto Police Department, during which defendant ran into a parked vehicle and caused damage to it.

Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights prior to the entry of his plea, as well as the consequences of his plea. The court found that his plea was free and voluntary and that there was a factual basis for it. Defendants counsel on appeal references several issues that he has apparently, and correctly, deemed not to be arguable on appeal. He argues that the transcript of the entry of defendants plea does not indicate that defendant agreed to the 12-year term imposed, but rather was advised by the court that 12 years was the maximum he could receive under the negotiated disposition. The plea form, however, indicates that the top/bottom that defendant could receive was 12 years, and the court indicated after the entry of his plea that defendant would receive the agreed upon sentence of 12 years. Counsel on appeal also notes that defendant actually admitted a strike allegation to a nonexistent second degree robbery, although he does not contest that defendant had suffered other valid strike convictions that could have been admitted. Counsel also indicates that there really was not a factual basis for defendants pleas to counts 1 and 4, as there was evidence only that the officer had a blue light illuminated, and not the required red light, and as there was no evidence that defendant maliciously damaged the parked car that he ran into. Counsel also indicates that defendants stipulation that each count could be separately and consecutively sentenced without violating Penal Code section 654 was not proper, as separate sentencing on some counts would have violated that section.

Defendant, however, waived his right to appeal from the entry of his plea and the sentence imposed. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times, and received exactly the sentence that he bargained for, which was a tremendous benefit as he faced over 50 years to life if he was convicted after trial. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.^[3]

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Ruvolo, P. J.

_________________________

Reardon, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

^[1] Two other strikes allegations were dismissed as part of the plea bargain.

^[2] The sentence consisted of three years on count 1, doubled to six years due to the admitted strike, and consecutive terms of eight months each on the other three counts, each doubled to 16 months due to the admitted strike, plus two years for admitted prison priors, for a total of 12 years in state prison.

^[3] Shortly before this opinion was to be filed, defendant filed a Supplemental Opening Brief which primarily reiterates potential issues raised in his counsels Wende brief. Defendants primary contention is that he did not want to have to give up his right to an appeal, as he apparently understands that he otherwise has waived any potential issues that would be raised on appeal. The transcript of the entry of his plea reflects an initial objection to that condition on his part, but once the court informed him that the waiver of his right to appeal was required, he indicated that he agreed to waive that right. We have considered defendants supplemental brief, but it does not alter our evaluation of his case.