P. v. Quezada
Filed 5/9/07 P. v. Quezada CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO QUEZADA, Defendant and Appellant. | B195310 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA053568) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
John S. Fisher, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert Derham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Eduardo Quezada (Quezada) appeals the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (e)(2))[1]and his admission he had previously been convicted of a felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced Quezada to a term of 32 months in state prison. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.[2]
After Quezada was taken into custody on an unrelated charge, Los Angeles Police Officer Bernard Romero (Romero) determined Quezada previously had been convicted of attempted forcible rape ( 664/261, subd. (a)(2)) and assault with the intent to commit a felony ( 220, subd. (a)). On December 5, 2002, Quezada had signed a form, translated for him from English into Spanish by a certified translator, indicating he understood he was obligated to register as a sex offender upon his release from custody. However, Romeros investigation revealed Quezada had failed to register since his release from prison in June of 2003.
2. Procedural History.
On November 3, 2006, Quezada was charged by information with the felony of failing to register as a sex offender as required by section 290, subdivision (e)(2). It was further alleged Quezada had suffered a prior conviction for attempted forcible rape within the meaning of the Three Strikes law ( 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d)), and had served a prison term for the offense ( 667.5).
On November 20, 2006, Quezada made a motion to set aside the information asserting the evidence at the preliminary hearing failed to establish he actually understood his obligation to register. The form signed by Quezada, who speaks Spanish, was in English. Accordingly, Quezada argued, although the form indicates it was translated for Quezada by a certified translator, the prosecution made no showing with regard to when or how this translation occurred. Quezada indicated [t]here was no testimony at the [preliminary hearing regarding] whether or not there was a complete translation into Spanish of all 16 registration requirements depicted on the form . . . . and that [n]ot giving a copy of the form in a language that the offender can read and understand is akin to not notifying the offender of his duty to register. The trial court denied the motion.
After his motion to set aside the information was denied, Quezada entered into a negotiated plea agreement under the terms of which he was to plead no contest to the charge of failing to register as a sex offender in exchange for a prison sentence of 32 months. After waiving his right to a trial by the court or a jury, his right to confront the witnesses against him, his right to present a defense and his privilege against self-incrimination, Quezada entered his plea and admitted having previously been convicted of a felony.
The trial court sentenced Quezada to the low term of 16 months, then doubled the term pursuant to the Three Strikes law, for a total term of 32 months in prison. Quezada was given presentence custody credit for 151 days actually served and 75 days of good time/work time, or a total of 226 days. The trial court then dismissed all remaining allegations and charges.
Quezada filed a timely notice of appeal on November 22, 2006.
On February 1, 2007, this court appointed counsel to represent Quezada.
CONTENTIONS
After examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record. By notice filed March 8, 2007, the clerk of this court advised Quezada to submit within 30 days any contentions, grounds of appeal or arguments he wished this court to consider. No response has been received to date.
APPELLATE REVIEW
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Quezadas counsel has complied fully with counsels responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259 [145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KITCHING, J.
We concur:
ALDRICH, J.
KLEIN, P. J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] The facts have been taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
