Filed 10/24/17 P. v. Morales CA6/17
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
ATHENA CHRISTINE MORALES, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
| H043532 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. C1521372, C1509432) |
Defendants Athena Christine Morales and Tamara Lee Donohue appeal following their convictions by no contest plea to a violation of Penal Code section 530.5[1] and multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for sale. Each defendant’s appellate attorney has filed a brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified each defendant of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf within 30 days. That 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from either defendant. We will affirm the judgments.
Procedural History
Both defendants, together with co-defendant Staci Renae Potter,[2] were charged in case No. C1521372 with (1) acquiring and retaining personal identifying information from 10 or more individuals, with the intent to defraud (count 1, § 530.5, subd. (c)(3)); (2) possession of methamphetamine for sale (count 2, Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); (3) possession of heroin for sale (count 3, Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); and (4) possession of hydrocodone, a misdemeanor (count 4, Health & Saf. Code, § 11350 subd. (a)). In a separate complaint (case No. C1509432) Morales was charged with possession of marijuana and methamphetamine while incarcerated (§ 4573.6)).
In case No. C1521372 both defendants pleaded no contest to counts 1 through 3; Donohue also pleaded no contest to count 4. Morales admitted three prison priors, within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), based on an auto theft conviction and two prior convictions of second degree burglary (§§ 459-460, subd. (b)). Donohue admitted a prior conviction of possessing a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11370.2) and a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At the same February 10, 2016 proceeding Morales pleaded no contest to the possession charge in C1509432 and admitted the auto theft prior and one of the burglary priors. In exchange for each defendant’s plea, she was to receive a six-year sentence to be served in county jail, with no supervision afterward.
On March 29, 2016, defendants appeared for sentencing. Both sought a continuance to allow their attorneys to investigate “new evidence about the detective in this matter . . . who is the affiant on the search warrant.” Counsel believed that if they found probative indications of the detective’s “character for being truthful,” the search warrant would be deemed invalid, and defendants would have a basis for moving to withdraw their clients’ pleas.
The court denied the request to delay pronouncement of judgment, finding the showing insufficient. It then proceeded to sentence defendants in accordance with their plea agreements. Donohue received the midterm of three years on count 3 (possession of heroin for sale) and concurrent two-year terms on counts 1 and 2. The court struck the section 667.5, subdivision (b), enhancement pursuant to section 1385 and imposed three years for the Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), enhancement, for a total term of six years. The remaining allegations were dismissed. Morales received an aggravated sentence of four years for count 3 in case No. C1521372, three concurrent years for count 1, and three concurrent years for count 2. The court also imposed one year for each of the first two prison priors but struck the last one under section 1385, for a total term of six years. Count 4 was dismissed. In C1509432, Morales received a six‑year term concurrent to that of case No. C1521372, consisting of the aggravated term of four years on count 1, with one year for each of the two admitted prison priors.
Discussion
Donohue filed a timely notice of appeal based on grounds occurring after entry of her plea and did not challenge the validity of the plea. Morales sought and obtained a certificate of probable cause. Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have carefully reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
Disposition
The judgments are affirmed.
_________________________________
ELIA, ACTING P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_______________________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.
_______________________________
MIHARA, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Defendant Potter initially appealed from the judgment, but at her request, this court dismissed her appeal.
