Filed 7/16/18 P. v. Amburn CA1/5

Received for posting 7/17/18

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

A152186

v.

(Del Norte County

DANIEL LEE AMBURN, Super. Ct. No. CRF17-9240)

Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________/

Daniel Lee Amburn appeals from a sentence imposed after he entered a plea agreement. His appointed counsel asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Amburn did not file a supplemental brief, and our review of the record discloses no arguable issues.

We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In December 2015, Amburn was paroled from state prison after serving a 19-year sentence for a second robbery conviction. In May 2017, Amburn and Elizabeth Jean Rinehart (collectively, defendants) had a physical altercation with a neighbor. The prosecution charged defendants with making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422 subd. (a) (count 1))[1] and alleged defendants personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, during the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The prosecution also charged defendants with assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) (count 2)). The complaint alleged Amburn had two prior robbery convictions, each of which constituted a strike (§§ 667, subd. (b), 1170.12) and a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)).

In June 2017, Amburn pled guilty to count 2. Amburn initialed and signed a felony plea declaration form stating: “Plea to Count 2 as an OPEN plea. Admit the 2 prior Robbery convictions. Defense will file a ‘Romero’/1385 motion to strike the prior strike conviction(s). All charges against Co-defendant, Elizabeth Rinehart, will be dismissed. . . . The DA’s Office reserves the right to refile against Ms. Rinehart, if this plea deal is not accepted by the Court or if defendant successfully withdraws his plea. Max exposure is 25 – Life.” At the plea hearing, Amburn entered an Arbuckle waiver. He pled guilty to count 2 and admitted two strike priors (§§ 667, subd. (b), 1170.12) and one prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)). The trial court determined Amburn knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and that there was a factual basis for the plea.

Amburn filed numerous “letters in support of . . . sentencing” and a Romero motion. The prosecution opposed the motion. At the August 2017 sentencing hearing, the court noted it had read and considered the probation department’s sentencing report, the letters supporting Amburn, and the Romero motion and opposition. Amburn and the victim addressed the court, and the court heard argument from the parties on the Romero motion. The court determined the negotiated plea was in the interest of justice. It examined the sentencing factors (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421, 4.423) and denied the Romero motion, concluding “this is clearly the kind of case that is in the spirit of the [ ] three strikes law.” The court sentenced Amburn to 25 years to life in state prison on count 2 and dismissed the other charges.[2] The court imposed various fines and fees, awarded custody and conduct credits, and reserved jurisdiction regarding restitution.

DISCUSSION

Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. Our review of the entire record does not show the existence of an arguable issue. Amburn has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 111), nor has he requested to have appellate counsel relieved. Amburn did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and does not raise any cognizable issues. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74–76; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 442–443.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

____________________

Jones, P.J.

We concur:

____________________

Simons, J.

____________________

Needham, J.