Filed 6/27/17 P. v. Morales CA5









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JIMMY JESSE MORALES, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.


F073005

(Super. Ct. No. F15905295)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brian F. Alvarez, Judge.
Carol Foster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Jimmy Jesse Morales, Jr., entered into a plea agreement which required him to plead no contest to one count of second degree robbery. All terms of the plea agreement were complied with by the parties and the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Morales was charged with second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) The probation report indicates that Morales entered a convenience store and left with a case of beer without paying for it. The store owner followed Morales out of the store demanding return of the merchandise. When the store owner caught up with Morales, Morales began striking the store owner. Two police officers happened upon the scene as Morales was striking the store owner. The encounter was also caught on the store’s video recording system. Morales initially asserted the beer was paid for by a companion, and he did not steal it.
Prior to the preliminary hearing, Morales entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty (or no contest) to the charge with an agreement that the maximum sentence to be imposed was the mitigated term of two years in prison. However, prior to sentencing, Morales would be referred to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a diagnostic study pursuant to section 1203.03, subdivision (a). Morales completed a “FELONY ADVISEMENT, WAIVER OF RIGHTS, AND PLEA FORM” reflecting the terms of the plea agreement. In addition, the form also informed Morales of his rights and the consequences of his plea. Morales initialed the boxes on the form indicating he understood and was waiving his constitutional rights.
Before accepting Morales’s plea, the trial court ensured Morales reviewed the form with his attorney, understood his rights as explained in the form, waived the rights in the form, signed and initialed the form in the appropriate places, and had adequate time to discuss the case with his attorney. The trial court verbally informed Morales he was waiving the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront the witnesses against him, the right to remain silent, the right to present a defense to the charges, and the right to a preliminary hearing. The trial court also informed Morales of the consequences of his plea. Morales responded that he did not have any questions about his plea. Morales then pled no contest to the charge.
Morales was referred for the diagnostic study. The report prepared by the psychologist indicated Morales was not a suitable candidate for probation primarily because of his refusal to acknowledge he had an addiction, and his refusal to accept responsibility for his behavior.
After reviewing the report, the trial court sentenced Morales to the mitigated term of two years in prison.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asserting that after a thorough review of the record she could not identify any arguable issues. By letter dated August 24, 2016, we invited Morales to inform this court of any issues he wished us to address. Morales did not respond to our invitation.
After reviewing the record we agree there are no arguable issues in this case. Morales entered into a plea agreement with the possibility of probation, and a maximum possible sentence of the mitigated term of two years. He received the diagnostic study agreed to, and was found unsuitable for probation. The report was well reasoned, and the trial court acted well within its discretion in denying Morales probation. He was then sentenced to the agreed upon term of two years.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.