P. v. Hogg

Filed 6/22/06 P. v. Hogg CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on his plea. His counsel has asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Defendant entered a plea of no contest to a charge of residential robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (a))^[1] and admitted four serious felony prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and five prior strike convictions (1170.12, subd. (c)(2)); the remaining counts and prior convictions were dismissed as part of a negotiated disposition.^[2] The plea agreement stated that the court would consider defendant's Romero motion (People v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero motion)). If the motion was granted, the court would impose the serious felony priors; if denied, the prosecution would move to strike all of the serious felony priors and defendant would be sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. After briefing and hearing, the court denied defendant's Romero motion. The serious felony convictions were stricken pursuant to the plea agreement and defendant was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life.^[3]

Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights prior to the entry of his plea, as well as the consequences of his plea. The court found the plea was free and voluntary, and that there was a factual basis for the plea.^[4] No error appears in the entry of the plea, in the court's denial of defendant's Romero motion, or in the sentencing proceedings.

Defendant was represented by counsel at all time. There are no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Reardon, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Rivera, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Apartment Manager Attorneys.

^[1] All further section references are to the Penal Code.

^[2] Defendant was additionally charged with two counts of residential burglary (§ 460, subd. (a)), three counts of petty theft with a prior conviction (§§ 484, 666), one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) and four prior prison convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)

^[3] According to the probation report, the charges arose from defendant's entry into the residence of victim Gregory Tirrell and defendant's theft of several items from the residence. Tirrell returned home during the burglary and restrained defendant until the police arrived, despite defendant's attempts to resist and escape. Tirrell and his two roommates identified items of property belonging to each of them, which had been taken from the residence, in defendant's car. One of the victims also identified a pair of binoculars belonging to him, which were located on defendant's person after his arrest.

^[4] Defense counsel stipulated to the factual basis for the plea, based upon his reading of the police report and the preliminary hearing transcript, and in reliance upon the case of People v. Jackson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1326, where the court upheld a robbery conviction when the defendant resisted the victim's attempts to stop him from fleeing with the victim's property, even though the victim was unaware that the defendant had the property.