P. v. Zendejas

Filed 4/15/09 P. v. Zendejas CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.

Travis Jacob Zendejas entered a negotiated guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,  192, subd. (a)) with personal firearm use (Pen. Code,  12022.5, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to 10 years in prison: the six-year middle term for voluntary manslaughter and four years for personal firearm use.[1] Zendejas appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Zendejas unlawfully killed another human being upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. He committed the killing by personally using a firearm.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, (1) whether Zendejas's plea was constitutionally valid and (2) whether he was properly advised that he could receive a 10-year sentence under the plea agreement.

We granted Zendejas permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Zendejas has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McINTYRE, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] According to the reporter's transcript, the court stated that four years was the lower term for the enhancement. Four years is actually the middle term and the lower term is three years. (Pen. Code,  12022.5, subd. (a).) Neither the abstract of judgment nor the minute order specifies whether four years represents the middle term or the lower term. Thus, there is no need to modify the abstract.

Before accepting Zendejas's guilty plea, the court stated, "I have indicated to both sides it's going to be a 10-year commitment to state prison. Both sides agreed that commitment is acceptable to them." The court asked Zendejas, "Is that your understanding of your deal with the D.A. and deal with me?" Zendejas said yes. Thus, it is clear the court intended to impose a four-year term for the enhancement and that Zendejas understood this.