Filed 9/13/18 P. v. Esparza CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAVID JOSEPH ESPARZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E070502
(Super.Ct.No. RIF1801692)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David a. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed.
Kristin Traicoff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant David Joseph Esparza pled guilty to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and admitted the allegation that he was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In accordance with the agreement, the court sentenced him to two years in state prison, plus one year on the firearm enhancement. The court also imposed various fees and fines.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, along with a request for certificate of probable cause, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, he was not granted credits for the time he previously spent on probation, and he was not told that he would owe restitution. The court granted the request. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by amended felony complaint with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2), count 2), discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246, count 3), fleeing a pursuing peace officer by driving a motor vehicle in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, count 4), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 5). The amended complaint also alleged firearms enhancements on counts 1 through 3 and 5. It also alleged that defendant had served four prior prison enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and had three prior serious felony convictions, within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (a), 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(2)(A), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and admitted its attendant firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (a)(1), in exchange for a three-year sentence in state prison and the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. Before accepting the plea, the court went over the terms of the plea agreement and asked if any other promises were made to defendant. He said no. The court also asked defendant if he discussed the legal rights on the plea form with his attorney and understood them all. Defendant confirmed that he did. The court then asked defendant if the initials and signatures on the plea form were his, and he said yes. The court read the language of the charge in count 1 and asked, “Did you do that?” Defendant said, “Yes, sir.” The court accepted the plea, finding that it was free, voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and that defendant understood the charges and consequences.
The court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $30 conviction fee, a $30 court security fee, and a $300 parole revocation fine.
ANALYSIS
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, and identifying a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; (2) whether there was an adequate factual basis for the plea; (3) whether there was an adequate factual basis for the firearm enhancement; (4) whether the record demonstrates that defendant was adequately advised of the consequences of his plea, specifically the $300 restitution fine; and (5) whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
