Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Moore

P. v. Moore

Filed 5/14/08 P. v. Moore CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

BOBBY LEWIS MOORE,

Defendant and Appellant.

E044021

(Super.Ct.No. FVA027321)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Knish, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed.

David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

On March 23, 2007, defendant and appellant Bobby Lewis Moore pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident that caused injury to another person under Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a), under the terms of a negotiated plea agreement. The plea agreement included a stipulated sentence of three years in state prison, to run concurrent to two other felony sentences. It also included a Cunningham waiver of defendants right to have the jury find circumstances in aggravation to support the upper term. (Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.) Moreover, under the terms of the plea agreement, an allegation that defendant committed the offense while on probation was to be dismissed.

On August 16, 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for the stipulated three years and dismissed the Penal Code section 12022.1, subdivision (f), allegation that defendant committed the offense while on probation. By stipulation between defendant and the prosecution, the trial court awarded defendant 784 days of presentencing custody credit, 392 actual days, and 392 conduct credits. The trial court ordered defendants sentence to run concurrent to the prison sentences in two other cases, which the court also imposed that day. Those cases were before the trial court on admitted probation violations. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $220 restitution fine and imposed an identical parole revocation fine, which was stayed pending successful completion of parole.

On August 20, 2007, defendant personally filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence and the validity of the plea in the current case only. His notice of appeal, however, did not designate the probation revocation cases in which he was sentenced to state prison concurrently. In his request for certificate of probable cause, defendant alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process because his rights and acknowledgements [sic] were not waive[d] or read to [him] per [R]ules of [C]ourt. On August 24, 2007, the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.

II^{^[1]}

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On July 19, 2006, defendant was seen driving a car on a residential road in San Bernardino County. A witness, who was working in her yard, heard the sound of a collision and saw defendants car drive away, leaving a pedestrian lying injured in a yard. After the accident, another driver heard sirens. The driver then observed defendant abandon his car in the roadway. The car continued to move until it struck a curb, crossing the roadway, and finally coming to a stop on a lawn. After the incident, the windshield of the car driven by defendant was shattered in the shape of a body.

III

ANALYSIS

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief; he has not done so.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

Acting P. J.

We concur:

GAUT

MILLER

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^{^[1]}The parties stipulated to the preliminary hearing for a factual basis for defendants plea. Therefore, the statement of facts is based on the transcript from the preliminary hearing.

Description	On March 23, 2007, defendant and appellant Bobby Lewis Moore pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident that caused injury to another person under Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a), under the terms of a negotiated plea agreement. The plea agreement included a stipulated sentence of three years in state prison, to run concurrent to two other felony sentences. It also included a Cunningham waiver of defendants right to have the jury find circumstances in aggravation to support the upper term. (Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270.) Moreover, under the terms of the plea agreement, an allegation that defendant committed the offense while on probation was to be dismissed. On August 20, 2007, defendant personally filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the sentence and the validity of the plea in the current case only. His notice of appeal, however, did not designate the probation revocation cases in which he was sentenced to state prison concurrently. In his request for certificate of probable cause, defendant alleged that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process because his rights and acknowledgements [sic] were not waive[d] or read to [him] per [R]ules of [C]ourt. On August 24, 2007, the trial court issued a certificate of probable cause.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.