P. v. Smith
Filed 7/13/06 P. v. Smith CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENE DOUGLAS SMITH, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | A111877 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR463036) |
Counsel appointed for defendant Gene Douglas Smith, Jr. has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. We have made that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.
Our examination reveals that on multiple occasions between March 12, 2005, and May 10, 2005, defendant engaged in harassing behavior directed towards his ex-wife (the victim), including making numerous harassing phone calls, repeatedly threatening physical harm, showing up at her places of residence, vandalizing her vehicle, and making threats to her mother and friends. The victim obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), yet defendant continued to contact her in violation of the TRO.
Defendant was charged by felony complaint with one count of stalking in violation of Penal Code section 646.9, subdivision (a),[1] with allegations of prior convictions for felony domestic violence (section 273.5), violation of a restraining order (section 273.6), and making a criminal threat (section 422); one count of making criminal threats in violation of section 422; and two misdemeanor counts of violating an emergency protective order in violation of section 273.6, subdivision (a). The complaint also alleged two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).On July 7, 2005, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing, entered a plea of guilty on the charge of stalking the victim in violation of section 646.9, subdivision (a), and admitted the prior conviction allegations. In exchange, the People agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and the prior prison allegations, and seek a maximum prison term of three years. At the time defendant changed his plea, he was advised that he was presumptively ineligible for probation in light of his prior felony convictions.
At the September 30, 2005 sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to three years in state prison.
Defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal.
The scope of reviewable issues on appeal after a guilty plea is restricted to matters based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings leading to the plea; guilt or innocence are not included. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895-896.)
Defendant's change of plea complied with Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. Defendant was represented by competent counsel who guarded his rights and interests. The sentence imposed is authorized by law. (Penal Code, § 646.9, subd. (c)(1).)
Our independent review having found no arguable issues that require briefing, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
_________________________
Richman, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Haerle, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Real Estate Lawyers.
[1] All statutory reference are to the Penal Code.
