P. v. Torres
Filed 4/27/11 P. v. Torres 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. PEDRO H. TORRES, Defendant and Appellant. | D058121 (Super. Ct. No. SCD227728) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
This appeal arises out of Pedro H. Torres's guilty plea to a felony count of possession of marijuana for sale and a misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana, and proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Torres was charged with one count of sale of marijuana and agreed to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of possession of marijuana for sale and a misdemeanor count of possession of marijuana. The plea agreement specified that the prosecution would not object to local time served, and dismissal of the felony count after 18 months of successful probation.
At the change of plea hearing, Torres testified that he had not had any alcohol, drugs or medicines in the preceding 48 hours, and that, with the assistance of counsel, he had read and understood the terms of his plea. The court advised him of his constitutional rights to a speedy trial by jury, to remain silent, to present evidence in his defense and to confront the witnesses against him, and he agreed to waive those rights and enter the plea. It also advised him of the penal consequences of his plea, including that (1) he could face up to three years in prison, plus four years of parole, if he violated the terms of his probation; (2) he would be required to pay a maximum fine of $10,000 and other fees and penalties; (3) he would be subject to deportation if he was not a U.S. citizen; (4) he might be required to register as a narcotics offender; and (5) if he committed additional crimes in the future, his offense might increase the punishment that he would serve for those crimes. Thereafter, Torres entered the plea, with the agreement of his counsel, and the court accepted the plea.
The court subsequently sentenced Torres in accordance with the plea agreement, with sentence suspended for three years, and placed Torres on summary probation subject to various conditions, including that he not possess a firearm, ammunition or deadly weapon; report to his probation officer as directed; submit to warrantless searches when required by his probation officer or a law enforcement officer; and complete residential treatment if directed to do so by his probation officer. It ordered Torres to pay an $800 fine, a $200 restitution fine, a $200 probation revocation restitution fine (suspended unless probation was later revoked), a $154 booking fee, a $60 court security fee and a $60 criminal conviction assessment. Torres filed a notice of appeal and unsuccessfully sought a certificate of probable cause on the ground that he wanted to change his plea because his sentence was "affecting [his] life in a negative way."
Based on Torres's plea, the issues that can be raised on appeal are limited to matters occurring after the plea (other than issues involving prior strike convictions). His appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that she has been unable to identify any argument for reversal and instead asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies the following issue as possible, but not arguable, on appeal: Was Torres's guilty plea constitutionally valid? This court invited Torres to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Wende and Anders and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Torres has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
