P. v. Treto
Filed 1/26/09 P. v. Treto CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE MANUEL TRETO, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B205768 (Super. Ct. No. KA079157) (Los Angeles County) |
Jose Manuel Treto appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm. (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.1, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced appellant to two years in state prison. We affirm.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief in this court raising no issues and requested that we independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On June 4, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Appellant did not respond. We find no arguable issues and we affirm.
Appellant was held to answer after preliminary hearing. An information was filed charging appellant with four felonies: receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)), carrying an unregistered, loaded firearm (Pen. Code, 12031, subd. (a)(1)), possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.1, subd. (a)), and discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner (Pen. Code, 246.3, subd. (a)) a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c). As a circumstance in aggravation, it was alleged that appellant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of each crime within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(2).
Appellant initially entered not guilty pleas. After consulting with his private counsel, appellant changed his plea pursuant to plea bargain. Appellant pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, 11370.1, subd. (a)(1)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts, dismissal of two misdemeanor cases, and an agreed upon low term of two years in state prison with fines and no probation. Appellant stipulated that the preliminary hearing provided a factual basis for his plea.
Appellant was represented by new counsel at the sentencing hearing, who moved to withdraw the plea on the grounds that appellant was not fully aware of the ramifications of the plea because of the Spanish language interpretation. The trial court reviewed the waiver form and denied the motion. Counsel then asked the court to suspend sentence and allow his client to serve one year in county jail, notwithstanding the agreed upon sentence of two years in state prison. The trial court denied the request and sentenced appellant to two years in state prison, with credit for time served. Appellant filed a notice of appeal based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
The record demonstrates that a Spanish language interpreter was present at each stage of the proceedings. An interpreter certified that he "had truly translated [the felony advisement or rights, waiver, and plea form] to the defendant in [Spanish]. The defendant stated that he or she understood the contents on the form, and then initialed and signed the form." Appellant and his counsel each signed the waiver form indicating that they had discussed, and appellant understood, appellant's rights and the consequences of the plea. In open court, appellant confirmed his understanding and stated that he understood the interpreter's interpretation of the form. The trial court found that appellant's waivers were knowing and intelligent, he understood the nature of the charges and consequences of the plea and his plea was free and voluntary.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that appellant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Jack P. Hunt, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Richard L. Fitzer, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
