P. v. Boyle
Filed 6/26/08 P. v. Boyle CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRENDAN FRANCIS BOYLE, Defendant and Appellant. | A119583 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR514167) |
Defendant Brendan Boyle appeals from a judgment imposing a two-year prison sentence after a no contest plea. Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief in which he raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel informed defendant of his right to submit a supplemental brief and he has not filed one. We have conducted the review, and finding no arguable issues to be briefed, affirm the judgment.
Background
On June 19, 2007, a California Highway Patrol officer observed defendant driving at 81 miles per hour on Highway 12, tried to make a traffic stop, but defendant accelerated, went through a red light, struck a concrete barrier, reversed direction and struck the officers car. Defendant eventually fled on foot and was arrested. At Sutter Hospital, defendant became combative and kicked the arresting officer before being restrained.
Procedural Developments
Defendant was charged in count I with assault with a deadly weapon against a police officer, a felony, (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (c)); in count II with failing to stop for a police officer, a felony (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)); in count III with unlawful use of force against a police officer, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (b)); in count IV with resisting a police officer, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, 148, subd.(a)(1)); and in count V with unlawful operation of a vehicle on a suspended license, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, 14601.1(a)). Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
On July 5, 2007, defendant agreed to an open plea of no contest to counts II and III with the possibility of a maximum state prison sentence of three years. He initialed and signed a detailed waiver of rights form that stated in section 17 that the court would not decide his sentence until it considered a report from the probation office. The court carefully determined that defendant read and discussed the waiver of constitutional rights form with his lawyer before signing it. Defendant on the record stated that no promises had been made to him other than the dismissal of counts I, IV, and V and agreed his plea of no contest was voluntary.
On July 26, 2007, the probation report recommended a state prison term of two years based on defendants prior record and the current offenses. Defendants counsel submitted a statement in mitigation with arguments for probation.
On August 5, 2007, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea and a Marsden motion for change of counsel.[1] On September 14, 2007, the court conducted a Marsden hearing, inquired into defendants concerns, and determined that defense counsel was properly representing defendant. The Marsden motion was denied. The court also denied the motion to withdraw defendants plea after determining good cause had not been established for withdrawal of his plea.
On October 18, 2007, after a sentencing hearing, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years for violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), and a concurrent six-month sentence for violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (b).
Discussion
The record review indicates that defendant entered into a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary change of plea, that thereafter the court properly denied the motion to withdraw his plea after considering defendants declaration of reasons for withdrawal, and properly denied the Marsden motion. There was no error in the sentencing proceedings or the sentence imposed.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Swager, J.
_________________________
Margulies, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
