P. v. Esquivel
Filed 9/16/13 P. v. Esquivel CA1/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RUDOLPH
CHAVEZ ESQUIVEL III,
Defendant and Appellant.
A139051
(Mendocino County
Super. Ct. No. SCUKCRCR1371738)
Pursuant to
a negotiated disposition, appellant Rudolph Chavez Esquivel III entered a plea
of no contest to first degree robbery
(Pen. Code § 213, subd. (a)(1)(B))
with a stipulated midterm sentence of four years. He received the four-year sentence.
Assigned
counsel has submitted a Wende
brief, certifying that counsel has been unable to identify any issues for
appellate review. Counsel also has
submitted a declaration confirming that Esquivel has been advised of his
raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been
submitted. As required, we have
independently reviewed the record. (
109–110.)
We find no
error and affirm.
Esquivel
and a codefendant were jointly charged with residential robbery in concert
(§§ 211, 212.5 & 213) and dissuading a witness (§ 136.1,
subd. (c)(1)). On April 5, 2013,
Esquivel entered a plea of no contest to first degree robbery with a stipulated
midterm sentence of four years. The
prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining count and to not file additional
sentencing enhancement allegations (§§ 12022.7 [infliction of great bodily
injury]; 667.5, subd. (b) [prior prison commitment]).
Esquivel’s
counsel said that he had only recently received the file and had not met with
Esquivel before that day, but that he had “discussed [the case] the best I can
in light of these circumstances. In
light of that, [Esquivel] would like to accept the plea.†On voir dire by the court, Esquivel said that
he had not had “as much time as [he] would like†to discuss his plea with his
attorney, but that he wanted to proceed.
Esquivel was advised on the record of his rights and the consequences of
his plea. The court found that Esquivel
had made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights, and that he understood
the nature and consequences of his plea.
Esquivel
stipulated to the following factual basis for the plea: “On March 24, 2013, in the County of
Mendocino, [codefendant and Esquivel] went to the residence of Loren John
Franklin. They were looking for one of
their friends. An argument ensued. [Codefendant and Esquivel] entered the
residence of Mr. Franklin, beat him.
Mr. Franklin went outside.
They beat him outside as well.
Also, they stole three pounds of marijuana.â€
On June 14,
2013, Esquivel was sentenced.
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3] The probation report included a letter from
Esquivel contending that his codefendant was entirely responsible for the offense
and requesting “some amendments [be] made to [his] plea of no contest which
[he] took under complete duress.†The
court noted that there was no motion to withdraw the plea before it and that
the sentence was stipulated. Esquivel’s
counsel stated that he had “been discussing it over the past several
weeks. I’ve researched it. I don’t think that I have a good legal basis
to file a motion to withdraw the plea.â€
The court
imposed the agreed upon four-year prison term, a restitution fine of $1120, a $40
security fee, and a $30 conviction assessment.
An additional $1,120 parole revocation fine was suspended. Esquivel received custody credits in the
amount of 90 days (79 actual, 11 conduct).
A timely
notice of appeal was filed on June 20, 2013.
The notice of appeal recites that it is based only on “the sentence or
other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the
plea.â€
Discussion
Our review
of the record reveals no arguable issues.
The record reflects that Esquivel was represented by competent counsel,
and that Esquivel waived on the record his rights to a preliminary hearing, to
a speedy and public trial, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against
him, to subpoena witnesses and present evidence, and his right against
self-incrimination. The trial court
found that Esquivel’s waiver of rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary
and that he understood the nature and consequences of his plea. Esquivel stipulated to a factual basis for
the plea. After discussion and research,
Esquivel’s counsel advised the court that he found no legal basis for a motion
to withdraw the plea.
Under
section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b), a defendant
seeking to appeal after entering a guilty or no contest plea generally must
first obtain a certificate of probable cause.
(§ 1237.5; rule 8.304(b); People
v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74.)
Since Esquivel did not seek or obtain a certificate of probable cause,
the scope of issues cognizable on appeal is narrow. There are no cognizable issues relating to
his guilt, or to his plea. (
1097, 1099.)
Esquivel’s
appeal from the sentence imposed presents no arguable issues. Esquivel was sentenced in accordance with the
agreed disposition and received all applicable presentence
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Bruiniers,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Jones, P. J.
_________________________
Simons, J.
references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
