Filed 3/22/18 P. v. Jones 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KENYANA JONES,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151793

(San Francisco City and County
Super. Ct. No. 226999)


This is an appeal from judgment after defendant Kenyana Jones entered a plea of guilty to attempted murder and admitted the allegation of firearm use during commission of this crime. Defendant was thereafter sentenced to a total prison term of 12 years, representing the upper term of nine years on the attempted murder count and an additional three-year term for the firearm use enhancement. Defendant was awarded a total of 217 days of custody credits.
After defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende) in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he declined to exercise such right.
Mindful that our review is limited to grounds for appeal occurring after entry of the plea (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(5)), we have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 24, 2017, a criminal information was filed charging defendant with the following crimes: attempted murder of an unknown victim, to wit, “person in black car driving on Lane Street crossing Palou Street” (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) (count one); assault with a semi-automatic firearm on this unknown victim (§ 245, subd. (b)) (count two); being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm with a prior conviction for the same offense (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) (count three); discharging a firearm at the unknown victim in the black car (§ 246.3, subd. (a)) (count four); and shooting at an unoccupied car, to wit, a Mercedes (§ 247, subd. (b)) (count five). In addition, it was alleged as to count one that defendant personally used and discharged a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and, as to count two, that he discharged a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
According to the probation report, this criminal information stemmed from the following events occurring in the Bayview area of San Francisco. Police were dispatched to the intersection of Lane Street and Palou Avenue following a report of gunshots. Once there, officers found 19 spent shell casings, damage to a stairwell, a bullet fragment, and damage to a Mercedes parked in a nearby intersection. No named victim was located. However, a neighbor’s video surveillance camera captured the sound of 20 gunshots and the sight of a black two-door Acura TL speeding through the intersection of Lane Street and Palou Avenue. This camera also captured a person wearing a mask jump out of the Acura and shoot at a car as it drove by. This person was later identified as defendant based upon his distinctive clothing. Further, when defendant was later arrested on another probation violation, he was wearing bracelets matching those worn by the person captured by the surveillance camera. No victim was ever identified.
On March 14, 2017, the prosecution filed a motion to amend the information to add the allegation that defendant had a prior juvenile adjudication as a strike conviction under sections 667, subdivisions (d) and (e), and 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c), and the allegation that this offense was a prior serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
On April 5, 2017, after the trial court rejected several defense motions, including motions to dismiss due to destruction of evidence and to dismiss count one for lack of evidence, and a motion for suppression of evidence, defendant entered a guilty plea to count one and admitted use of a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5. Before doing so, defendant, represented by counsel, was advised that, by entering a guilty plea, he would be waiving certain constitutional rights, including, among others, the right to a trial by jury and to confront adverse witnesses. Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulated disposition, the trial court dismissed the remaining counts and allegation and sentenced him to 12 years in state prison, representing the upper nine-year term on count one and a consecutive three-year term for the enhancement. Restitution was thereafter awarded to the victim in the amount of $300. In addition, defendant was ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine and received a total of 217 days of custody credits.
A timely notice of appeal was filed on June 29, 2017. Because the trial court declined to issue a certificate of probable cause on the issue of whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, defendant’s appeal is limited to issues arising after entry of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(5).)
DISCUSSION
As mentioned above, neither appointed counsel nor defendant has identified any actual issue for our review. Upon our own independent review of the entire record, we agree no actual issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744.) Defendant, represented by competent counsel, received a total prison term of 12 years, including the upper nine-year term for the attempted murder count and a three-year consecutive term for the gun use enhancement. The trial court properly relied on undisputed facts set forth in the preliminary hearing transcript when accepting defendant’s plea. The trial court then ordered defendant to pay $300 in victim restitution and a $300 restitution fine, and awarded him a total of 217 days of custody credits. This sentence was lawfully imposed after the trial court found in open court that defendant, represented by competent counsel, had voluntarily and intelligently given up certain constitutional rights and, thus, that acceptance of his plea and admission was appropriate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.414, 4.420, 4.421, 4.423; §§ 1016–1018, 1192.5.)
As stated above, defendant was also informed of his right to file a supplemental brief in this appeal, but he declined to do so. Thus, having ensured defendant has received adequate and effective appellate review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 109, 112–113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


_________________________
Jenkins, J.


We concur:


_________________________
McGuiness, Acting P.J.*


_________________________
Pollak, J.






















A151793/People v. Kenyana Jones