P. v. Veatch
Filed 1/22/10 P. v. Veatch 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, v. JOHN McCLAIN VEATCH, Defendant and Appellant. | E048705 (Super.Ct.No. FMB900129) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On March 27, 2009, defendant John McClain Veatch, represented by counsel, pled guilty to one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)),[1]and admitted that he had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim ( 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of the offense. In return, defendant was sentenced to the stipulated term of six years in state prison with credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. His notice of appeal challenges the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea as well as the validity of the plea.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[2]
On March 16, 2009, defendant and the victim were drinking beer together at defendants apartment when an argument ensued. The argument escalated to a fight. Defendant retrieved three knives and stabbed the victim multiple times.
On March 18, 2009, a felony complaint was filed, charging defendant with one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. ( 245, subd. (a)(1).) The complaint further alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim in the commission of the offense. ( 12022.7, subd. (a).)
Nine days later, defendant pled guilty as charged and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement. At the change of plea hearing, the court reviewed the plea form with defendant and asked defendant whether he carefully read and understood the form. Defendant replied in the affirmative. The court also asked defendant whether he went over the form carefully with his attorney before he initialed and signed it. Defendant again replied in the affirmative. The court also asked defendant whether he understood the charges against him, what he was pleading guilty to, the rights he would be waiving, and the consequences of pleading guilty. Defendant answered, Yes, and also indicated he understood everything on the form. The court further inquired of defendant of whether anyone had made any promises, threats or violence to plead guilty, or whether he was under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medicine that would affect his ability to understand the proceedings. Defendant responded in the negative. The court also asked defendant whether he had sufficient time to consult his attorney about his rights, potential defenses, penalties, punishments, and consequences as a result of pleading guilty, and whether he understood that information. Defendant replied, Yes to both questions.
The court also explained to defendant the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty, the plea agreement, and the consequences of pleading guilty. Defendant indicated that he understood his rights. In addition, defendant replied in the negative to the courts inquiry of whether he had any questions about his plea agreement.
The court found that defendant understood the plea form, his constitutional rights, the charges against him, and the consequences of pleading guilty; that he knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights.
On April 30, 2009, defendant was sentenced to the middle term of three years for the assault, a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement, and awarded 52 days of credit for time served.
On June 29, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea, as well as challenging the validity of the plea. In his request for a certificate of probable cause, defendant claimed that he was not mentally stable when he entered his plea. He further asserted that he believed he would not have entered the plea had he been mentally stable at the time. His request for certificate of probable cause was granted.
II
DISCUSSION
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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], 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, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.
The record shows defendant was thoroughly advised of the rights being waived and the consequences of pleading guilty. There is substantial evidence to support the trial courts finding that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
In addition, the sentence was authorized and was imposed in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), 12022.7, subd. (a).)
We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
Acting P.J.
We concur:
KING
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] The factual background is taken from the police report. The parties stipulated that the court may use that report as a factual basis for the plea.
