P. v. Fuentes

Filed 6/19/07 P. v. Fuentes CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Jose Perez Fuentes appeals from a judgment and sentence following his guilty plea. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We find no such issues and affirm.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the probation report. On September 2, 2006, at the Lake County Fairgrounds, law enforcement officials ascertained that defendant was using a false permanent resident card. It was later determined that defendant has lived in the United States illegally for 16 years and was never issued a permanent resident card.

Defendant pled guilty to using false citizenship documents in violation of Penal Code section 114. He was advised of the rights he would waive by entry of his plea and its potential consequences.^[1] The parties stipulated to an adequate factual basis for the plea.

Defendant had two prior felony convictions. The court found this was not an unusual case that would render defendant eligible for probation and sentenced him to five years in state prison. Defendant was ordered to submit to blood and saliva samples and fingerprinting. The court imposed a $1,000 restitution fine; an additional $1,000 restitution fine that was stayed pending completion of parole; and a $20 court security fee. Defendant received 56 days of credit for time served, 14 days of good time credits and 14 days of work credits.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Defendants counsel has represented that she advised defendant of his right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so. Defendant has been also advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved. This court has reviewed the entire record on appeal. No issue requires further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Parrilli, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

^[1] Although when it took his plea, the court misadvised defendant that the maximum term for his offense was three, rather than five, years (Pen. Code,  114), any error was waived by defendants failure to raise it at sentencing. (People v. McClellan (1993) 6 Cal.4th 367, 377.)   The purpose of the general doctrine of waiver is to encourage a defendant to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected or avoided and a fair trial had. . . . [] In this case, the record reflects that defense counsel was familiar with the probation report. Had the recommendation that defendants be ordered to pay a restitution fine come as a genuine surprise, it would have been a simple matter to bring the issue to the attention of the trial court.   (Ibid., quoting People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1023.) Here, defendant and his attorney reviewed the probation report, which correctly specified the five-year term, in advance of the sentencing hearing, and his attorney acknowledged at the outset of the hearing that the offense carries a five-year term, all without protest.