P. v. Suderman
Filed 8/31/07 P. v. Suderman CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A117259
v. (San MateoCounty
Super. Ct. No. SC61672)
MICHAEL EDWIN SUDERMAN, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
_______________________________________/
Michael Edwin Suderman, Jr., appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree burglary, (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (b))[1]and one count of receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On November 29, 2005, appellant entered a bank and tried to cash a fraudulent check. A teller identified the check as fraudulent and seized it. Appellant fled.
On July 8, 2006, appellant tried to purchase merchandise at a store using fraudulent identification. A clerk determined the transaction was fraudulent and notified the authorities. The police came and arrested appellant. They searched him and found three additional identification cards that had been altered.
Based on these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, the offenses we have set forth above. In addition, and as is relevant here, the information alleged appellant had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and that appellant had one prior strike.
The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded no contest to the offenses and allegations we have set forth above. In exchange, other counts were dismissed.
Prior to sentencing, appellant filed a motion that asked the court to strike the strike finding. The court declined to grant that request, and then sentenced appellant to a term of seven years, eight months in prison calculated as follows:
On count 1, second degree burglary, the middle term of two years doubled to four years pursuant to the strike finding.
On count 5, second degree burglary, eight months doubled to 16 months under the strike finding.
On count 13, receiving stolen property, eight months doubled to 16 months under the strike finding.
For the prior prison term finding; one year.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Prior to accepting appellants plea, the court explained to appellant the constitutional rights he would be waiving. The court also explained to appellant the consequences of his plea. Given appellants extensive prior criminal history, the court did not err when it declined to strike the strike. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was represented by adequate counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Gemello, J.
________________________
Needham, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
[1] All further section references will be to the Penal Code.
