P. v. Macias
Filed 6/13/08 P. v. Macias 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MACIAS, Defendant and Appellant. | D051303 (Super. Ct. No. SCS190975) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Macias pled guilty to one count of false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, 236, 237(a))[1], admitted he committed the crime for the benefit of a gang ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and admitted a prior strike conviction ( 667 (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). He stipulated to a nine-year prison term. The court sentenced Macias to nine years in prison. Macias did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
Macias and four other codefendants were charged with various crimes arising from their efforts to compel George Presson to contribute towards bail money on behalf of Richard Buchanan, a member of a gang known as the Mexican Mafia.
In the early part of 2004, Presson allowed Buchanan to live at his apartment in Imperial Beach. Buchanan lived there, off and on, for two or three months. In late August 2004, Presson learned that Buchanan, who Presson knew was a leader in the Mexican Mafia, had been arrested. Nancy Sorie,[2]one of appellant's codefendants who had visited Buchanan at Presson's apartment, came to Presson and asked if he could help her obtain bail money for Buchanan. Presson agreed to contribute $1,000, but indicated he could not access the money immediately.
On or about September 4, Presson went to Sorie's house where they spoke about Presson's promise to contribute to the bail. Around 3:00 a.m. on September 5, Sorie, accompanied by appellant and codefendant Michael Colon, showed up at Presson's house to talk about the bail. When Presson, who was now fearful, confirmed he could obtain the $1,000 by the next day, he was told he had promised $10,000. Codefendant Colon, who Presson thought was armed because of a bulge in his pants pocket, told Presson he needed to come up with the promised $10,000.
By September 9 Presson had not provided any funds and was again approached at his apartment by appellant, Sorie and Colon. After demanding Presson's car keys, Colon (who was armed) and Macias drove Presson to an apartment on Home Avenue where he was told he needed to come up with the money. During the course of the day, Presson was driven to several locations and repeatedly admonished by appellant and the other codefendants to come up with the money. Presson felt threatened and was therefore compliant. By late afternoon, he obtained $1,000 and presented it to Sorie and Macias at a fast-food restaurant. Macias, who was angry, informed Presson that this amount was not acceptable and that he better come up with the rest of the money or they would take his truck.
Shortly thereafter, Presson, who was scared, left the restaurant in his car accompanied by appellant and Colon. Eventually he was taken to a house that Sorie shared with Buchanan. Macias and Sorie informed him that he could not leave. Around midnight, Presson unwillingly signed over his truck because of a comment made about his children, which he interpreted as a threat. Early in the morning he was allowed to return to his house. Out of fear, he went into hiding and did not call the police. Presson believed that he had to cooperate with appellant and the codefendants or face reprisals by others in the Mexican Mafia.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court 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 refers to as possible, but not arguable issues: (1) whether Macias's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether the court erred by allowing the parties, with Macias's agreement, to amend the plea form at the time of sentencing; and (3) whether the court erred in selecting the upper term to compute appellant's stipulated nine-year prison term.
We granted Macias 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 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonable arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Macias on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The information indicates Sorie's "True Name" is Nancy Soria. However, the predominant record references are to "Sorie," and we will abide by this preference.
