P. v. Faulcon
Filed 8/14/06 P. v. Faulcon CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WINDELL FAULCON, Defendant and Appellant. | D046788 (Super. Ct. No. SCD179685) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roger W. Krauel, Frank A. Brown, and David J. Danielsen, Judges. Affirmed.
After the trial court found him mentally competent to stand trial, Windell Faulcon entered guilty pleas to eight counts of robbery. (Pen. Code,[1] § 211.) He admitted personal firearm use during one of the robberies (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and serving five prior prison terms (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court denied a motion to substitute counsel (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) and a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas (§ 1018), and sentenced Faulcon to prison for 20 years: the three-year middle term on one robbery conviction enhanced 10 years for firearm use, with consecutive one-year terms on the remaining seven robbery convictions (one-third the middle term). It stayed sentence on the section 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1) enhancement, and ordered Faulcon to pay a $4,000 restitution fine, which was stayed, and an additional $4,124 restitution fine to the victims. . The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding Faulcon competent to stand trial; (2) whether Faulcon's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid; (3) whether the sentence was in accord with the plea agreement; (4) whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty pleas; (5) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the 20-year prison sentence; (6) whether the trial court erred in denying Faulcon's motion to withdraw the guilty pleas; and (7) whether this issue is cognizable on appeal absent a certificate of probable cause.[2]
We granted Faulcon permission to file a brief on his own behalf and granted two extensions of time to file the brief. Faulcon has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Faulcon on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Because Faulcon entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (§ 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
