Filed 12/26/17 P. v. Hill 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068828

(Super.Ct.No. INF1700515)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dean Benjamini, Judge. Affirmed.
Christopher Michael Hill, in pro. per.; Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant is serving a prison sentence of nine years eight months after pleading guilty to unlawfully manufacturing, importing, selling or possessing an expandable baton or mini bat, and admitting a strike prior and seven prison term priors. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On March 9, 2017, the People filed a complaint charging defendant with one count of felony manufacturing, importing, selling or possessing an expandable baton or mini bat. (Pen. Code, § 22210.) The People also alleged defendant had a “strike” prior (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and he had 12 prison term priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On July 19, 2017, defendant pled guilty to the single count and admitted the strike prior and seven of the prison term priors. The court found a factual basis for the plea based on the stipulation of the parties. Pursuant to the plea bargain, the court sentenced defendant to nine years eight months in prison as follows: the lower term of 16 months, doubled for the strike prior, plus seven consecutive one-year terms for the prison priors.
This appeal followed. The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent him. 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 potentially arguable issues.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so, along with an addendum containing copies of case law. Defendant argues his 1999 guilty plea and conviction (Superior Court of San Bernardino County case No. FVI009907) for evading a peace officer causing serious bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 2800.3) is not a “strikeable” offense and his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective for not properly investigating this. Specifically, defendant contends he was convicted of serious bodily injury, not great bodily injury, as required by Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8) [“ ‘serious felony’ ” means “any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice.”] However, as recognized in In re Richardson (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 647, 654, serious bodily injury under Vehicle Code section 2800.3 is the equivalent of great bodily injury under the three strikes law. In addition, defendant argues he did not “personally inflict” the injury, as is required for the offense to be a strike under Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). Defendant attaches to his supplemental brief copies of documents from his 1999 conviction, including the following: (1) an information filed July 2, 1999; (2) the change of plea form filed September 9, 1999; (3) the minute order from the plea hearing, also dated September 9, 1999; and (4) the abstract of judgment for case No. FVI009907. However, these documents submitted by defendant do not establish either way whether defendant “personally inflicted” the great bodily injury. Because defendant has the burden to establish error, this argument fails. (People v. Fedalizo (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 98, 105.) For the same reason, defendant has not established that his counsel was ineffective.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ
P. J.

We concur:


SLOUGH
J.


FIELDS
J.