P. v. Heinricher
Filed 1/23/13 P. v. Heinricher CA1/3
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TONY ERIC
HEINRICHER,
Defendant and Appellant.
A136295
(Napa
County
Super. Ct.
No. CR153576)
Defendant
Tony Eric Heinricher appeals from a judgment entered following his no-contest
plea to involuntary manslaughter and
elder abuse. His attorney has asked this court for an independent review of the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (
Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, which he has
not done. Upon independent review of
the record, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm
the judgment.
Defendant
and his wife began caring for defendant’s mother in their home in 2006. At the
time of her death in January 2010, defendant’s mother was 92 years old and
suffering from severe dementia.
On
January 4, 2010, defendant
brought his mother to the hospital for treatment of a compound ankle fracture
that she had sustained on December
21, 2009. According to defendant, his mother had sustained the
out of the house in the middle of the night. He delayed seeking treatment
because they had not realized the severity of her injury until early January.
By the time the mother was admitted to the hospital, she was suffering from an
infection and sepsis, which ultimately led to kidney failure. Defendant’s
mother died on January 22.
On
September 16, 2010,
defendant was charged by grand jury indictment with one count of murder (Pen.
Code,
§ 187, subd. (a)), and one count of elder abuse (§ 368, subds.
(b)(1), (b)(3)). Although defendant initially moved to dismiss the indictment pursuant to section 995,
on March
23, 2012,
defendant withdrew his motion to dismiss and entered a negotiated no contest
plea to one count of involuntary manslaughter in violation of section 192,
subdivision (b), and elder abuse under section 368, subdivision (b)(1) without
the enhancement found in subdivision (b)(3). Under
the terms of the agreement, defendant was to receive a three-year term on the
elder abuse count, with any sentence imposed on the involuntary manslaughter
count stayed pursuant to section 654. The court found there was a factual basis
for the plea pursuant to stipulation of counsel, based on the police reports
and grand jury transcript.
Defendant was sentenced to the
midterm of three years on the elder abuse count and to the midterm of three
years for the involuntary manslaughter, which was stayed pursuant to section
654. The court imposed a restitution fine of $200 pursuant to the plea
agreement, along with other conditions set forth on page 6 of the probation
report. The court awarded defendant a total of 1,108 days total custody
credits, which was 13 days more than his sentence, and gave him credit of $30
for each of those days, for a total credit of $390. The court imposed indigent defense
reimbursement fees of $600, but waived $300 following a financial hearing.
Defendant filed a timely
14, 2012.
Discussion
By
entering a plea of no contest, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the
evidence establishing the crime and, therefore, is not entitled to review of
issues going to the question of guilt. (People
v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) Because defendant has not
obtained a certificate of probable cause,
he may not contest the validity of his plea. Thus, only issues relating to
matters arising after the plea was entered are cognizable on appeal.
(§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)
Defendant
was sentenced in conformity with his plea. We see no error with regard to the
fees imposed. Defendant was adequately represented by counsel throughout the
proceedings.
The
judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Pollak, J.
We concur:
_________________________
McGuiness, P. J.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
The recitation of the facts is drawn from the factual summary contained in the
probation report.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
