P. v. Robinson

Filed 3/13/17 P. v. Robinson CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RALPH LEE ROBINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.


F072158

(Super. Ct. No. PCF306949A)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Glade F. Roper, Judge. (Retired judge of the Tulare County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Kendall D. Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Ralph Lee Robinson entered into a plea agreement in which he pled no contest to cultivating marijuana. Appellate counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues in the case. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The information charged Robinson with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359), and cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358).
The preliminary hearing transcript indicates that officers searched the Robinson residence pursuant to a search warrant. They found 174 healthy marijuana plants in the backyard in an enclosed structure. Two medical marijuana certificates were posted, one for Robinson and one for his wife. Each permitted 90 plants and 6 pounds of marijuana. The testifying officer estimated the plants would yield approximately 174 pounds of marijuana.
Mrs. Robinson said her husband was responsible for the grow, and she did not receive any marijuana from the operation. Robinson stated he did not see anything wrong with selling marijuana.
Robinson entered into a plea agreement with the prosecutor in which he agreed to plead guilty to cultivating marijuana. The prosecutor would dismiss the remaining count, and Robinson would be placed on formal probation including spending 120 days in jail. The trial court confirmed with Robinson that he wished to accept the agreement, advised him of his statutory and constitutional rights, advised him of the consequences of the plea, confirmed Robinson was entering the plea freely and voluntarily, and confirmed with defense counsel that he had discussed the plea with Robinson and defense counsel believed Robinson understood the agreement. Thereafter, the trial court accepted Robinson’s no contest plea. Robinson was sentenced in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The sentence was stayed pending appeal.
Robinson filed the notice of appeal and the trial court granted his petition for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asserting that after reviewed the record he could not identify any arguable issues. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and agree there are no arguable issues in this case. Robinson entered into a favorable plea agreement, which resulted in his being placed on probation. He was fully advised of his rights, confirmed he wanted to enter into the plea agreement, and freely and voluntarily entered his plea.
By letter dated May 11, 2016, we invited Robinson to inform the court of any issues he wished addressed. Robinson responded to our letter with basically the same argument as contained in his petition for a certificate of probable cause. He asserts he at all times believed his actions were legal, and the officer who testified at the preliminary hearing fabricated statements attributed to Robinson and his wife.
We reject these assertions because Robinson entered into a plea. A plea of no contest “is a ‘conclusive admission of guilt’ [citation] and constitutes a conviction ‘“within the ordinary as well as the technical meaning of the word, ...”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Jones (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1093-1094.) “‘A plea of guilty admits every element of the offense charged …, all allegations and factors comprising the charge contained in the pleading….’ [Citation.] The legal effect of a no contest plea is the same. [Citation.]” (People v. Palacios (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 252, 257-258.)
Robinson’s petition for a certificate of probable cause adds the assertion that he did not understand he was going to be placed on probation as a result of his plea and that he was going to have to pay fines. The record belies Robinson’s statement. At the hearing, the terms of the agreement were placed on the record including the fact Robinson would be placed on probation. Robinson was also advised he would have to pay a restitution fine of up to $10,000. Accordingly, we find no merit to these assertions.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.