Filed 4/11/18 P. v. Bickford CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM HOUSTON BICKFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074713

(Tulare Super. Ct. No. VCF291488)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Lloyd L. Hicks, Judge.
Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
 
INTRODUCTION
Defendant/appellant William Houston Bickford pled no contest to one count of violating Penal Code section 21310. Defendant was placed on probation for three years. After defendant violated probation, the trial court terminated probation and imposed a sentence of two years in prison. Defendant appealed and appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On November 20, 2013, a complaint was filed against defendant charging him with one count of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger, in violation of section 21310. It also was alleged that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d).
On December 6, 2013, defendant accepted a plea offer. The trial court indicated that since defendant’s prior conviction was nearly 30 years old, “the appropriate sentence would be one year with probation, and that’ll cause the Court to have to strike the strike.” The trial court stated that if defendant entered a plea, he would receive probation with up to one year in custody, but if he violated probation, he could be sent to prison for the maximum amount of time. Defendant indicated he understood.
The trial court informed defendant of the consequences of his plea, and inquired if defendant had sufficient time to discuss the plea with his attorney, to which defendant responded in the affirmative. The trial court informed defendant of his constitutional rights and solicited a waiver of those rights. The defense stipulated that defendant had a pocketknife that was opened and a kitchen knife without a handle in his pocket, as the factual basis for the plea.
The trial court then accepted a plea of no contest to the charge of carrying a dirk or dagger. The trial court then went on to state, “I’m not gonna have him admit the strike because I’m not quite convinced it is a strike at this point in time and the Court’s gonna strike it anyway.” The trial court noted that the prior strike was out of Oregon, and it was not clear “if the elements are the same.”
On December 19, 2013, the trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Defendant was placed on probation for three years, subject to various terms and conditions, including serving 365 days in local custody. Defendant was awarded credit for 61 days. Various fines and fees were imposed. Upon release from custody, defendant was informed that one of the terms of probation was that he obey all federal, state, and local laws. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court struck the prior conviction.
On June 19, 2015, the probation officer filed an affidavit alleging defendant had violated probation. The alleged violation of probation was that defendant had been arrested and charged with a new criminal offense; he was being held without bail. On February 29, 2016, the violation of probation was dismissed. The People refiled the violation of probation that same day. Defendant was remanded without bail.
On July 21, 2016, the trial court found defendant was in violation of probation. The violation of probation was based upon defendant’s conviction for kidnapping, forcible rape, and other sexual offenses committed against a “mentally challenged” female on June 9, 2015, in case number 331557.
The probation report prepared for sentencing found no factors in mitigation and multiple factors in aggravation with respect to the kidnapping, rape, and sexual offenses. As to the June 2015 offenses, the probation department recommended a determinate, unstayed term of four years, and two consecutive terms of 25 years to life, for a total of 54 years to life. It was recommended that any sentence imposed for the section 21310 offense be served concurrently.
At the October 27, 2016, sentencing hearing, the trial court followed the recommendation of the probation department and imposed two terms of 25 years to life, to run consecutively, and an additional determinate term of four years. As for the violation of probation, the trial court revoked probation and imposed a prison term of two years to run concurrently with the term imposed in case 331557. A total of 792 days of custody and conduct credits were awarded; the credits applied to the instant case and case number 331557.
The abstracts of judgment filed on November 1, 2016, accurately set forth the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. On November 16, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 on October 3, 2017. That same day, this court issued its letter to defendant inviting supplemental briefing. No supplemental brief was filed.
Defendant entered a plea of no contest to the section 21310 offense after being advised of his rights, acknowledging he understood the consequences of his plea, and conferring with defense counsel. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement and placed on probation. Thereafter, a jury convicted defendant of kidnapping, rape, and other sexual offenses. The criminal convictions constituted a violation of his probation. The term imposed by the trial court for the section 21310 offense was the midterm of two years. (§§ 1170, subd. (h), 21310.)
After an independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.