P. v. Shields
Filed 4/3/07 P. v. Shields 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CORNELL SHIELDS, Defendant and Appellant. | A115825 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C151315) |
Defendant appeals from a judgment following his plea of no contest and imposition of sentence. His counsel has raised no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; see Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.) Upon independent review of the record, we conclude that no arguable issues are presented for review, and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS[1]
Following a preliminary hearing an information was filed on December 2, 2005, charging defendant with murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)), attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 664/211), and conspiracy to commit robbery (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1)). It was also alleged as to each count that the defendant was armed with a firearm. (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (a)(1)).
On June 6, 2006, pursuant to a negotiated disposition defendant entered pleas of no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, 192, subd. (a)) and a personal use of firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, 12022.5, subd. (a)). The negotiated disposition specified the imposition of an aggravated term of 11 years for voluntary manslaughter plus an additional 10 years for the personal use enhancement. On September 26, 2006, the court imposed a total sentence of 21 years in prison and awarded a total of 786 days of presentence custody credits. Restitution fines of $4,200 were imposed pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45. The court also ordered restitution of $4,978.58 to the Victim Compensation Board and $250 to Bernice Lightsey.[2] Defendant was also ordered to submit DNA samples pursuant to Penal Code section 296. Pursuant to the plea bargain all remaining charges and allegations were dismissed.
At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he did not know that he couldnt appeal the deal once [he] took the deal. The court denied the motion. Defendant filed a request for a certificate of probable cause dated November 2, 2006, which was denied by the court on November 9, 2006. This appeal followed.
On September 30, 2004, at approximately 11:15 p.m., Oakland police officers were dispatched to 10052 Empire Road in the City of Oakland. The victim was located on the front porch at that address. The victim told an officer that a Black male suspect, 6 foot, wearing a black mask, black clothing came out from the bushes on the south side of the street, armed with a handgun. The suspect said to him give me all you got. And then the suspect shot him 4 to 5 times. The police detained the defendant a short time later since he matched the description of the suspect observed leaving the scene, but he was released due to lack of identification by witnesses. The victim died on November 14, 2004.
Defendant was arrested on a misdemeanor warrant on October 26, 2006, after the police had received information from an anonymous caller that the defendant was possibly involved in the incident. Defendant was interviewed after being advised of his rights and gave varying accounts of his involvement with the crime.
DISCUSSION
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. We have reviewed the record, and particularly the transcript of the negotiated plea and the written plea form executed by the defendant. He was thoroughly and accurately advised by the court before entry of his pleas. Defendants motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied.[3]There are no sentencing errors. Defendant was sentenced to the exact sentence set forth in the plea agreement.
After a full review of the record, we find no arguable issues and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.
__________________________________ Swager, J. | |
We concur: __________________________________ Marchiano, P. J. __________________________________ Margulies, J. |
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
[1]Since the present appeal is taken from a no contest plea, we need only concisely recite the facts pertinent to the underlying conviction as necessary to our limited review on appeal.
[2]She suffered property damage as a result of the shooting.
[3]A defendant who seeks to withdraw his guilty plea may do so before judgment has been entered upon a showing of good cause. (In re Vargas (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1142; People v. Castaneda (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1612, 16161617.) Good cause to withdraw a plea is shown if the defendant did not exercise free judgment in entering into the plea. (In re Vargas, supra, at p. 1142.)
