The following summary of the facts is taken from the probation report which summarized a Vacaville Police Department report.

During a traffic stop, police contacted defendant, the driver of the vehicle, and learned he was on probation for identity theft with a search condition. Upon searching the vehicle, officers located personal identifying information, including a Social Security number, home address, birthdate, and driver’s license number for S.H., a resident of Texas. The officers spoke with S.H. on the telephone. S.H. indicated she neither knew defendant nor gave him permission to have her personal identifying information.

The Solano County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with one count of felony identifying information theft with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(2); count 1).

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled no contest to one count of identifying information theft with a prior conviction in this matter and no contest to the same offense in a second, unrelated case (No. FCR352975). In the plea form signed and initialed by defendant, among other rights, defendant waived his right to appeal. The plea form stated defendant had been promised “16m concurrent, 8m on Home detention, LCA, ASP [¶] . . . 8m supervision.” In addition, defendant agreed that if he failed to appear for the date set for sentencing without a legal excuse, his plea would become an “ ‘open plea’ ” to the court, he would not be allowed to withdraw his plea, and he could be sentenced up to the maximum term of imprisonment, three years eight months.

The trial court set July 1, 2021, for sentencing. The court instructed defendant that he must keep his appointment with the probation department and return to court. Defendant promised to do so. If defendant failed to keep his promise, the court reiterated, it was not bound by the parties’ agreement. Defendant stated he understood.

Defendant, however, did not follow the court’s instructions and failed to appear on July 1 for sentencing. His counsel had “no representations,” and the court issued a no-bail bench warrant.

On November 15, 2021, defendant appeared in court, and he was remanded without bail. Defendant failed to appear for sentencing, according to defense counsel, because he “was under the impression” that probation would contact him to let him know “what the next steps were.”

Three days later, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Defense counsel argued defendant had never failed to appear in either one of his cases, this was “a new thing for him,” and it “appear[ed] to have been a major mixup.” If the court was not willing to reinstate the plea offer, counsel requested imposition of the low term. Disagreeing, the prosecutor argued the court should not reinstate the plea agreement and instead should impose the midterm, two-year sentence.

Because of the “changed circumstances,” the court did not believe that abiding by the plea agreement would be in the interests of justice. The court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in case No. FCR352975 and to the same term in the instant case, with the two terms to run concurrently for an aggregate prison term of two years. The court imposed the mandatory minimum fine under Penal Code section 1202.4 of $300 and awarded custody credits for each case. The court noted this was “an 1170(h)^[[1]] local sentence.”[2]

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, stating the appeal is “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”

DISCUSSION

We have examined the record to determine if any arguable issue is present. We have found none.

Defendant was ably represented by counsel.

We find no meritorious sentencing issues requiring reversal of the judgment. Defendant violated his promise to return to court for sentencing even though at the time of his plea, the trial court explained to him that if he did not keep his promise, it was not bound to follow the plea agreement. In short, the court acted well within its inherent discretion by imposing the midterm.

We therefore agree with defendant’s counsel that no issues are present that could undermine defendant’s conviction.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

[1] Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h).

[2] The abstract of judgment specifies the sentence is to county jail.