P. v. Raybon
Filed 4/25/07 P. v. Raybon CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GOLDY RAYBON, Defendant and Appellant. | A116051 (County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 197745) |
As a result of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant Goldy Raybon pleaded guilty to two counts of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211/212.5, subdivision (c), and admitted a prior second degree robbery conviction charged under Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e) as a second strike. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison, filed a timely appeal, but did not file a certificate of probable cause required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). Defendants counsel filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that there are no meritorious issues to be briefed.
Discussion
This case arose out of three separate street robberies in August of 2005 at different locations in San Francisco involving six persons who were confronted by defendant, armed with a handgun.
By pleading guilty to two counts of robbery, defendant admitted the sufficiency of the evidence establishing those crimes, and therefore is not entitled to review of any issue that merely goes to the question of his guilt or innocence. (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42.) In addition, Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b) bar appeals following a guilty plea except under two circumstances that do not apply here, or when a defendant has sought and received a certificate of probable cause. Defendant did not receive the necessary certificate.
The information charged the defendant with eight counts and alleged numerous serious enhancements that could have resulted in a sentence far exceeding 12 years. Defendant provided information involving two pending murder cases and with the assistance of counsel agreed to a negotiated disposition.[1] Defendants counsel and the court carefully advised defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea. He knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights and changed his plea. The court sentenced defendant in accordance with the negotiated disposition, awarded appropriate custody credits, and imposed a $400 restitution fine.
Competent counsel represented defendant at all stages of the proceedings. There was no error in the sentence imposed.
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Swager, J.
______________________
Margulies, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1]A pending motion to enforce a previous understanding for leniency was rendered moot and abandoned in light of the disposition.
