P. v. Valenzuela

Filed 2/5/08 P. v. Valenzuela CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Christopher G. Estes, Judge. Affirmed.

________

Jesus E. Valenzuela, in pro. per.; Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________

On March 1, 2007, pursuant to a plea bargain, Jesus Valenzuela pleaded no contest to second-degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211 and admitted to personal use of a firearm under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a). As agreed, on March 22, 2007, the court imposed a five-year upper term for the robbery plus a consecutive four-year middle term for the firearm use allegation. The court dismissed various other allegations, including a separate count of armed robbery, assault with a firearm, possession of an assault weapon, and several counts of receiving stolen property. The court imposed various fines and fees.

Valenzuela timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us independently to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On November 26, 2007, we advised Valenzuela that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On January 7, 2008, we received a letter brief from Valenzuela stating that he was innocent of armed robbery and only was storing the weapons at his house for his uncle. Regarding the plea bargain, he asserted that his Spanish language interpreter did not speak much Spanish, he did not understand what she was telling him in court, and the only thing I [understood] was that she told me to say guilty but that I was going to get out on Probation and Conditional Freedom and that is the reason I pled guilty[.] He further stated, [T]he judge gave me 9 years being accused of the robbery and I wanted to talk in Court because I didnt understand what they were telling me I raised my hand and the Attorney told me to lower my hand.

Valenzuela did not file his letter brief within the allotted 30 days. In any case, we have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Valenzuelas appellate attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Valenzuelas contention that he did not understand the proceedings is not supported by the record, which indicates that at each appearance in court, a court-certified Spanish-language interpreter assisted Valenzuela. The record also indicates that the trial court questioned Valenzuela thoroughly and methodically, allowing time for additional discussion with and explanation by his counsel. In response to the courts question whether nine years in state prison was Valenzuelas understanding of the terms of the plea bargain, Valenzuela responded, But I did not shoot any firearm. The trial court invited Valenzuela to discuss the matter further with his counsel, and after two more such discussions, when the court asked whether Valenzuela wished to accept the terms of the plea bargain, he answered, Yes, I accept. Valenzuela answered yes to various questions about the terms of the plea bargain, whether he was entering it voluntarily, the trial rights he was relinquishing by accepting it, that he was pleading no contest to a violent felony, and the sentencing consequences that would have, among others. At points where Valenzuela expressed uncertainty about the terms of the plea bargainespecially the definition and significance of a preliminary hearingthe court rephrased its questions and allowed further discussion and explanation by Valenzuelas appointed counsel. At the sentencing hearing on March 22, 2007, Valenzuela showed no uncertainty in his answers.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

We concur:

MALLANO, Acting P. J.

JACKSON, J.^*

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

^* (Judge of the L. A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI,  6 of the Cal. Const.)