Filed 11/1/17 P. v. Taylor CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTONIO B. TAYLOR,
Defendant and Appellant.

A150470

(San Francisco City & County
Super. Ct. No. 224836, 1502115)


Following defendant’s plea of guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admission of an enhancement and three prior prison convictions, defendant was sentenced to 10 years in state prison. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On April 27, 2015, about 7:15 p.m., Inspector Mark Hutchings of the San Francisco Police Department Homicide Detail was notified by department operations there was a homicide in the area of Sixth and Minna Streets. After arriving at the scene of the homicide, Hutchings viewed videos from two buildings located in the area. According to the inspector, one of the videos showed defendant riding a bicycle on the south sidewalk of Minna Street towards Sixth Street and entering an alley. Once he entered the alley, a second video revealed defendant loitering in a group of five or six people. While defendant was in the alley, the victim, Wise Rivas, approached the group. Subsequently, Rivas and defendant were face-to-face in the alley; no crowd was around them. Defendant then walked away with his bicycle. At that point, the trial court described the video as depicting that Rivas, “kind of walked up [to defendant] and stalked him a bit” and then using his left hand punched defendant’s kidney area. In response, defendant “quickly” turned and the “fight’s on.” The court noted, “I can’t say for sure when the victim’s getting stabbed. . . . [¶] Certainly see some blows and arching of arms that’s consistent with a stabbing motion.” In addition to viewing the videos, Inspector Hutchings also spoke to a witness who stated Rivas was initially winning the fight, but he eventually stopped fighting, yet defendant kept hitting him.
In his statement to Hutchings, defendant acknowledged he knew Rivas, and stated he was attacked from behind by Rivas causing him to defend himself. Defendant elaborated he was hit in the head from behind with an unknown object, then turned to face Rivas, and in the process of doing so, pushed him against a chain-link fence. As defendant was returning punches and restraining Rivas against the fence, defendant’s folding knife fell out of his hoodie pouch pocket. He and Rivas, according to defendant, then struggled to retrieve the knife. And as he restrained Rivas with his left hand, defendant was able to pick up the knife with his right hand. After opening the knife with his teeth to expose the blade, defendant stabbed Rivas who “went down,” after which defendant continued to stab him. Rivas died as a result of the stab wounds.
An information was filed charging defendant with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), and second degree robbery (§ 211). It was further alleged as to all counts defendant used a dangerous and deadly weapon, a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and as to the assault with a deadly weapon and second degree robbery counts, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Lastly, the information alleged defendant had suffered three prison commitments (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
Pursuant to section 995, defendant moved to set aside the robbery and murder charges. The trial court, following a hearing, set aside the robbery, but not the murder.
Thereafter, defendant made a Faretta motion to represent himself, but withdrew the motion several days later instead seeking to replace his appointed counsel. The trial court held a closed Marsden hearing and denied defendant’s motion to replace his counsel.
Defendant eventually entered into a plea agreement in which the prosecution amended the information to add another count alleging defendant committed voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) with a personal use enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted the personal use enhancement and the three prior prison convictions.
Not satisfied with the plea agreement, defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing his plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was under the influence of medication at the time of the plea, and the trial court had failed to find a factual basis for the plea. After describing its “familiarity” with defendant, including from the Marsden hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion finding the jail records reflected defendant was not on medication until after he entered his guilty plea, and the court had articulated a factual basis for the plea because it had read the preliminary transcript in preparation for the ruling on the section 995 motion.
At sentencing, after the trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike one of the prison prior allegations, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 10 years: the middle term of six years on the voluntary manslaughter, plus one year for the personal use enhancement, plus one year for each of the three prior prison allegations. Defendant received 787 days of custody credits.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
The trial court granted defendant’s request for issuance of a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant and has filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case, but advising the court under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, no issues were found to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was notified by his counsel he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have examined the entire record ourselves to see if any arguable issue is present. Because defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crimes by entering a plea of guilty, he is not entitled to review of any issue going to the question of his guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.)
Before defendant pled guilty to manslaughter and admitted the enhancement and prior convictions, defense counsel explained to him the constitutional rights he would be waiving and the consequences of his plea. And before accepting the plea, the court also advised defendant of his rights and defendant waived them. Additionally, in response to the court’s questions, defendant indicated he had not taken any drugs, alcohol, or medication, his mind was “clear,” and he had not been threatened nor pressured to plead guilty. In short, defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights.
Though defendant claimed in his motion to withdraw his plea that the court had failed to find a factual basis for the plea, we disagree. The court, in fact, relied on the preliminary hearing transcript in support of its determination there was a factual basis for the plea.
We also find no meritorious sentencing issues requiring reversal of the judgment. Defendant was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, and the record does not reveal any deficiencies in counsel’s representation. We therefore agree with defendant’s counsel that no issues are present that could undermine defendant’s guilty plea.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
 




_________________________
Margulies, J.




We concur:


_________________________
Humes, P.J.


_________________________
Banke, J.



















A150470
People v. Taylor