P. v. Williams
Filed 11/8/13 P. v. Williams CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMAINE
ADELL WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
A139285
(San Mateo
County
Super. Ct.
No. SC078561A)
Appellant
Jamaine Adell Williams appeals from his conviction and resulting sentence following
his no-contest plea to one count of taking
and driving a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).)
Appellant’s
counsel has filed an opening brief in
which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of
the record as required by
436. Counsel’s declaration states she
has notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal,
and that an independent review under Wende
instead was being requested. Counsel
also advised appellant of his right personally to file a
chooses to bring to this court’s attention.
No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
We
note that appellant has not obtained a certificate of probable cause, which is
required by Penal Code section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a
judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. Although no certificate of probable cause was
sought, we nevertheless exercise our discretion to review the entire record to
determine if there are any potentially meritorious
issues that require briefing. Accordingly, we have reviewed the whole
record pursuant to People v. Wende,
arguable issue on appeal.
Procedural and Material
Factual Background of Case
A
three-count felony amended complaint was filed by the San Mateo County District
Attorney’s Office on July 9, 2013,
charging appellant with one felony count of taking and driving a motor vehicle
without the consent of the owner. (Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), one felony count of possession of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and one
misdemeanor count of driving a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended
(Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a).)
Apparently,
between the time of filing the original criminal complaint and the amended complaint
on July 9, a written motion to suppress
evidence was filed by appellant on July 3, pursuant to Penal Code
section 1538.5. At the time for the
preliminary hearing on July 9, it was agreed that the parties would present
testimony both in connection with the motion to suppress evidence and the
preliminary hearing. The court agreed to
hear arguments first on the pending motion to suppress, before making a
decision whether to hold appellant to answer the charges alleged in the amended
complaint. In the event the trial court
decided to deny the motion to suppress, the parties would then either present a
negotiated plea disposition, or they would continue with the preliminary
hearing.
Three
witnesses were called to testify in connection with the combined hearing. The first was Burlingame police officer Josef
Fregosi. At the conclusion of the police
officer’s testimony, the defense called Nathaniel Knapp, a long-time friend of
appellant, to testify, who was followed by appellant himself. At the conclusion of the witnesses’ testimony
and the arguments of counsel, the trial court denied the motion to suppress
evidence concluding that the detention of appellant was “a good stop.â€
Following
the court’s ruling, appellant’s counsel
requested a recess, after which counsel indicated the parties had reached a
plea disposition. By this negotiated
plea, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of taking and driving a motor
vehicle without the consent of the owner (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)),
for which he would be sentenced to serve 90 days in county jail followed by
Proposition 36 probation.
Appellant
completed and signed a plea form that included an acknowledgement of the rights
he was relinquishing as a result of entering the no-contest plea, which was
followed by oral admonitions at the time the court accepted the plea. As part of the disposition the prosecution
also agreed to dismiss the remaining counts, which the court then ordered. Appellant was sentenced in accordance with
the negotiated plea, and probation was granted with conditions.
Conclusions
Based Upon Independent Record Review
Upon
our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious
issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. As to appellant’s motion to suppress evidence,
we conclude the determinations that law enforcement had sufficient factual and
legal bases to detain appellant, and make the subsequent seizure of evidence
from him, were supported by substantial evidence, and supported by applicable
legal precedent.
We
also discern no error in the plea disposition or in sentencing. The suspension of sentence, the grant of
probation appellant received, and the restitution fines, penalties, and
conditions imposed were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by
counsel.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is
affirmed.
_________________________
RUVOLO,
P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
REARDON, J.
_________________________
RIVERA, J.
2013, unless otherwise indicated.
substantial evidence supports the following brief narrative relating to the
seizure of evidence: the detention resulted from a complaint that a person
matching the physical description of appellant was engaged in suspicious
conduct at a parking structure where a stolen 2007 Audi was located. After the initial detention of appellant, it
was learned that he had an arrest warrant outstanding. Appellant then consented to a search of his
person, and a key to the stolen Audi was found in his pocket.
