P. v. Chavez
Filed 3/5/07 P. v. Chavez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. DANIEL JOE CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | H030789 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC628517) |
Defendant Daniel Joe Chavez pled guilty to a failure to update his registration as a sex offender within five days of his birthday pursuant to Penal Code section 290, subdivision (a)(1)(C)(iii),[1] and admitted one of the two strike priors ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) charged in the complaint in exchange for a prison term of no more than 32 months. The second strike prior and a prison prior ( 667.5, subd. (b)) were dismissed at sentencing.
Before sentencing, defense counsel moved the court pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to strike the admitted strike prior. The court refused and sentenced defendant to 32 months in state prison. This appeal ensued. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days, but have received nothing from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the record and concur with appellate counsels assessment of the case.
FACTS
On April 11, 2006, an investigator with the Santa Clara County District Attorneys Office noticed that defendant had not updated his transient registration within 30 days of his December 21, 2005, registration in Gilroy. The investigator contacted defendants parole officer who did not know defendants whereabouts. As of April 14, 2006, and April 24, 2006, defendant had not updated his registration, despite the fact that his birthday was nine days before the latter date. A warrant was issued for defendants arrest. The parole officer acknowledged that after defendant became aware of the warrant, he tried to surrender himself. According to defendant, he was taken into the jail at one point, but the authorities would not accept the surrender. The trial court commented at sentencing that its notes showed that defendant had tried to surrender himself on two occasions. Defendant was arrested on May 26, 2006.
DISCUSSION
In compliance with Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 119, we have reviewed the clerks transcript containing the complaint, the Romero motion, the probation report, and the abstract of judgment; the reporters change of plea transcript dated August 10, 2006; and the reporters sentencing transcript dated October 17, 2006. There are no grounds for appeal. The court properly advised defendant of his trial and appeal rights, the consequences of the plea, including the maximum sentence bargained for in the case, restitution, the obligation to provide a blood sample and fingerprints, the lifetime ban on owning or possessing any kind of firearm or ammunition, and parole obligations and immigration consequences. The court elicited a change of plea from not guilty to guilty personally by defendant with the concurrence of defense counsel and a stipulation to a factual basis on the record. Before sentencing, the trial court exercised its discretion by carefully weighing the Romero factors including the circumstances of the past and current offenses and defendants background, character, and prospects, then denying the motion and sentencing defendant. The court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(a).) There was no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Elia, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
