P. v. Beltran
Filed 9/25/07 P. v. Beltran CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID BELTRAN, Defendant and Appellant. | E042801 (Super.Ct.No. FVA027071) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On November 14, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.7,[1]defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to count one ( 215(a), carjacking), and count two ( 211, robbery) as charged in felony case No. FVA027071 filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County.
On March 2, 2007, defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied and, in accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for six years [2]less custody credits, and the remaining count and special allegations were dismissed and stricken on motion of the district attorney pursuant to section 1385.
Statement of Facts
Defendant approached the female victim in a Toys-R-Us parking lot. He displayed a knife and demanded money from her. Defendant got into her car after the victim gave him the money. Defendant drove away after the victim escaped through the passenger door. Later that day, defendant was arrested at the conclusion of a police pursuit which resulted in the victims car being crashed.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further references are to the Penal Code.
[2] In response to defendants plea of guilty and the voluntariness of that plea, defendants change of plea form states, Defendant rejects offer of 8 years state prison with 1 strike, and the signature of defendants attorney appears next to that statement. The colloquy between defendant and court further reflects the following:
THE COURT: And the remaining counts and allegation would be dismissed.
Is that your understanding of the agreement?
DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You are aware, are you not, that these two convictions, the carjacking and the robbery, are two strikes, which means if you get out of state prison and commit any, any felony offense, youre looking at 25 to life.
DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: How old are you?
DEFENDANT: 19. [] . . . []
THE COURT: I see where he turned down eight years and one strike as opposed to taking two strikes and six years. I think its foolish, but thats his decision.
