Filed 9/25/18 P. v. Mata-Diaz CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
YEFRY SAMUEL MATA-DIAZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
| H045100 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 17CR000704) |
Defendant Yefry Samuel Mata-Diaz pleaded no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).[1] He also admitted that he had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667.5, subd. (c), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and had violated probation in case No. SS151804A. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436 (Wende) on behalf of defendant. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. We affirm the judgment.
- Factual and Procedural Background
On May 14, 2017, police officers were dispatched to the residence of Miguel Ortiz regarding a burglary. Ortiz told them that he was talking on the phone in his bedroom when he heard a loud noise in the living room. Ortiz went into the living room and saw that the blinds were out of place. He also saw defendant standing outside near the window. There was a screwdriver lying on the floor. Ortiz recognized the screwdriver as belonging to defendant’s father. Ortiz went outside to confront defendant, but he ran away.
On July 12, 2017, defendant was charged by complaint with first degree burglary (§ 459). The complaint also alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667.5, subd. (c), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1). The following day, a petition alleging that defendant had violated the terms of his probation was filed.
On July 20, 2017, the trial court reviewed the waiver of rights form that defendant had completed. Defendant acknowledged that he had read and understood everything in the form and that he had initialed and had signed the form. The defense stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The trial court advised defendant of his rights to a jury trial, to a preliminary hearing, to remain silent, to cross-examine witnesses, to testify, to call witnesses, to present a defense, to use the court’s subpoena power, and to an attorney. Defendant stated that he understood his rights and waived them. Defendant pleaded no contest to first degree burglary and admitted that he had a prior strike conviction. He also admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation in case No. SS151804A.
On August 17, 2017, the trial court imposed the lower term of two years on the burglary conviction, and doubled the sentence based on the prior strike conviction. Defendant was awarded 42 actual days of credit and 6 days of conduct credit under section 2933.1 for a total of 48 days of credit.[2] In case No. SS151804A, the trial court awarded defendant 96 actual days of credit and 14 days of conduct credit under section 2933.1 for a total of 110 days of credit. The trial court imposed a concurrent sentence for the probation violation. The trial court also imposed various fines, fees, and assessments.
Defendant filed a timely amended notice of appeal.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
II. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________
Mihara, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.
_____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.
