Fear Not Law Articles: P.v. Rodriguez

P.v. Rodriguez

Filed 9/30/09 P.v. Rodriguez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

JESSE ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F057556

(Super. Ct. No. F09901473)

OPINION

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

PROCEEDINGS

On March 10, 2009, appellant, Jesse Alfredo Rodriquez, was charged in a criminal complaint with failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (b)).^{^[1]}

On April 14, 2009, the parties entered into a plea agreement. Appellant would plead no contest to the allegation in exchange for the mitigated prison term. Appellant executed a felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form (plea waiver form). In the plea waiver form, appellant acknowledged the terms of the plea agreement, the consequences of his plea, and his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.^{^[2]} Appellant waived his constitutional rights in the form.

The trial court confirmed that appellant had carefully read and understood the plea waiver form and had no questions concerning its contents. The court advised appellant of the consequences of his plea as well as his constitutional rights. Appellant admitted he had a qualifying conviction under section 290 for sexual assault in Arizona. Appellant further admitted he was in violation of his probation in an unrelated case and agreed to be sentenced at the change of plea hearing. Appellant pled no contest to the allegation.

The trial court sentenced appellant to prison for the mitigated term of 16 months. The court granted applicable custody credits and imposed a restitution fine and other fees. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, but did not secure a certificate of probable cause.

Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 7, 2009, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. Appellant sent a short letter asking to have his case dropped. Because appellant is entitled to independent review by this court, we will not dismiss his appeal.

After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Kane, J.

^{^[1]} All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

^{^[2]}Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.

Description	On March 10, 2009, appellant, Jesse Alfredo Rodriquez, was charged in a criminal complaint with failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (b)). On April 14, 2009, the parties entered into a plea agreement. Appellant would plead no contest to the allegation in exchange for the mitigated prison term. Appellant executed a felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form (plea waiver form). In the plea waiver form, appellant acknowledged the terms of the plea agreement, the consequences of his plea, and his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.[2] Appellant waived his constitutional rights in the form. The trial court confirmed that appellant had carefully read and understood the plea waiver form and had no questions concerning its contents. The court advised appellant of the consequences of his plea as well as his constitutional rights. Appellant admitted he had a qualifying conviction under section 290 for sexual assault in Arizona. Appellant further admitted he was in violation of his probation in an unrelated case and agreed to be sentenced at the change of plea hearing. Appellant pled no contest to the allegation.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.