P. v. >Martinez>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 7/25/13  P. v. Martinez CA6

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 

SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,   Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   ALEX ADOLFO SANDOVAL MARTINEZ,   Defendant and Appellant.

H038787      (Monterey County       Super. Ct. Nos. SS112248B,       SS120012A, SS110191A)

>I. 
INTRODUCTION

            This matter
concerns three criminal cases.  In case
No. SSC110191A, defendant Alex Adolfo Sandoval Martinez pleaded no contest to
one felony, evading an officer with willful disregard of the safety of
persons or property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2,subd. (a)) and five misdemeanors.  In case No. SS112248B, defendant pleaded no
contest to residential burglary (Pen.
Code, § 459)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">[1]
and admitted the gang allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)).  In case No. SS120012A, defendant pleaded no
contest to second degree robbery (§ 211) and admitted the allegation that he
was released from custody on his own recognizance or bail at the time of the
offense (§ 12022.1).  In accordance with
the plea agreement resolving all three cases, defendant was sentenced to a
total term of 10 years eight months.

            Defendant’s
motion to deem his notice of appeal
as timely filed was granted and we appointed counsel to represent him in this
court.  Appointed counsel has filed an
opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue.  We notified defendant of his right to submit
written argument on his own behalf within 30 days.  The 30-day period has elapsed and we have
received no response from defendant.

            Pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
and People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record.  Following the California Supreme Court’s
direction in People v. Kelly, supra,
at page 110, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural
history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the
punishment imposed.”

II.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

>            A.  Case
No. SSC110191A

            According
to the probation report, on August 31,
2011, Soledad Police Department officers responded to a report of
vandalism involving the driver of a silver van slashing the tires of an
automobile.  Police officers located the
silver van and attempted a traffic stop. 
The driver of the silver van refused to pull over and a vehicle pursuit
through residential areas ensued.  During
the vehicle pursuit, the silver van brushed a police vehicle, causing moderate
damage.  The pursuit ended when the
silver van collided with two cars and came to a stop.  After the collision, the occupants of the
silver van fled on foot.  Minutes later,
defendant was discovered in a nearby backyard and apprehended by police.  Defendant gave a police officer a false name,
but he was later identified as the driver of the silver van by one of the other
suspects.

            The
complaint filed in September 2011 charged defendant with two felonies, evading
an officer with willful disregard of the safety of persons or property (Veh.
Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1) and hit and run resulting in injury (Veh.
Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count 2).  The
complaint also charged defendant with four misdemeanors, including vandalism (§
594, subd. (b)(2)(A); count 3), hit and run resulting in property damage
(Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 4), resisting a police officer (§ 148,
subd. (a)(1); count 5), and giving false information to a police officer
(§148.9, subd. (a); count 6).

            B.  Case
No. SS112248B

            The testimony
given at the preliminary hearing held
in March 2012 indicates that on November 30, 2011, City of Salinas police officers
responded to a report of robbery.  When
contacted, the reporting party stated that two men were looking into houses and
and robbing them.  As the police officers
were driving around the area, they saw two men running away.  At some point, police officers in the area
detained a juvenile and contacted a young woman, who said that she had arrived
there with defendant and the juvenile in a white van.  She also said that defendant was a Norteño,
she and the juvenile hung out with Norteño gang members, and the three of them
had gotten together that day to smoke marijuana and burglarize houses.  The juvenile was shown a photograph of
defendant.  He acknowledged that the
photograph depicted the person who was with him when they ran from the police.

            When
the white van was located and searched, police officers found a wallet with
defendant’s identification, baseball caps with an emblem depicting the letter
“M,” and a potato chip bag containing marijuana.  The police officer who testified as a gang
expert gave his opinion that defendant was an Salinas East Market Street
Norteño gang member, based on his possession of gang indicia and his prior
criminal association with Norteño gang members.

            Police
officers entered a house near where the white van was located and found that
the sliding screen at the back of the house had been cut, the screen for the
kitchen window had been removed, and the kitchen window was open.  The officers also saw footprints on the floor
and open drawers and cupboards.  The
victim reported that the house was not in that condition when she left for
work.

            The
amended information filed in March 2012 charged defendant with conspiracy to
commit residential burglary (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and residential
burglary (§ 459; count 2).  The
amended information further alleged that defendant had committed the crimes for
the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)) and while he
was released from custody on his own recognizance or bail (§ 12022.1).

            C.  Case
No. SS120012A

            According
to the preliminary hearing testimony
given in March 2012 a City of Salinas police officer responded to a call about
a robbery on December 24, 2011.  The
victim reported that as he was crossing an intersection someone grabbed him by
the back of his sweatshirt.  When the
victim turned around, the person who had grabbed his sweatshirt told him “he
had five seconds to give up his money.” 
Because the person’s hand was inside his front sweatshirt pocket the
victim thought he might be armed.  After
the person punched the victim in the face, he reached into the victim’s back
jean pocket and removed a wallet, which contained $200.

            The
police officer then took the victim to an “in-field show-up.”  The officer told the victim that police had a
detained a person who might or might not be involved in the incident.  At the in-field show-up, the victim
positively identified defendant as the person who had robbed him.

            The
information filed in March 2012 charged defendant with second degree robbery (§
211; count 1) and alleged that he had committed the offense while released from
custody on his own recognizance or on bail (§ 12022.1).

>            D.  Plea
Agreements and Sentencing

            On March 9,
2012,  defendant entered into a plea
agreement in case No. SSC110191A. 
After the prosecutor amended count 2 to reduce the charge to a
misdemeanor violation of Vehicle Code section 20002, defendant pleaded no
contest to all charges in the complaint. 
Defendant also waived time for sentencing.

            On May 25,
2012, defendant entered into plea agreements in the other two cases.  In case No. SS112248B, defendant pleaded no
contest to residential burglary and admitted the allegation that he had
committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang.  In case No. SS120012A, defendant pleaded no
contest to robbery and admitted that he had committed the offense while
released from custody on his own recognizance or on bail.

            The plea
agreements resolved all three cases in exchange for a stipulated total sentence
of 10 years eight months.  Defendant also
agreed to a waiver of rights in all three cases, which stated:  “I hereby waive and give up all right
regarding state and federal writs and appeals. 
This includes, but is not limited to, the right to appeal my conviction,
the judgment, and any other orders previously issued by this court.  I agree not to file any collateral attacks on
my conviction or sentence at any time in the future.  I further agree not to ask the court to
withdraw my plea for any reason after it is entered.”

            At the
sentencing hearing held in July 2012  the
trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 10 years eight months in
accordance with the plea agreements, structured as follows.  In case No. SS112248B, the court imposed the
lower term of two years on the burglary conviction plus five years for the gang
enhancement.  In case No. SS120012A, the
court imposed a consecutive term of one year (one-third the middle term) on the
robbery conviction plus a two-year enhancement for committing the offense while
released on bail.  In case No.
SSC110191A, the court imposed a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the
middle term) on the conviction for evading an officer with willful disregard of
the safety of persons or property and gave credit for time served on the
remaining counts.

            The trial
court granted defendant a total of 218 days of presentence custody credit,
consisting of 190 actual days plus 28 days of conduct credit.  Additionally, the court ordered defendant to
pay victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)) in the amounts recommended in the
probation report, as well as restitution fines (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45)
and various other fines and fees.

            E.  Appeal

            Having
carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable
issues on appeal.  (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)

III.  DISPOSITION

            The
judgment is affirmed.

 

 

                                                                        ____________________________________

                                                                        Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

 

 

 

 

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

          ELIA, ACTING P.J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________

          Márquez, J.