Filed 5/17/17 P. v. Powers 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ALANA DAWN POWERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073401

(Super. Ct. No. F16900413)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Dennis J. Peterson, Judge.
Karriem Jamaal Baker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Alana Dawn Powers entered into a plea agreement in which she agreed to plead guilty (or no contest) to one count of identity theft, admit a prior strike conviction, and admit a prior prison term enhancement for a stipulated prison term of seven years. In exchange, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss numerous other counts, enhancements, and pending cases. Powers pled as agreed, and was sentenced to the agreed-upon term.
After a thorough review of the record, appellate counsel was unable to identify any arguable issues. We agree and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The probation report indicates that two district attorney investigators attempted to locate Powers to arrest her for two outstanding felony arrest warrants. They found her driving a vehicle with an expired registration while her driving privileges were suspended. Powers was arrested and thereafter gave the investigators permission to search her vehicle and her apartment. The investigators discovered a computer in the apartment which Powers admitted contained evidence of identity theft. The investigators also found “a checkbook, checks, a bill, credit cards, social security numbers and cards, a prescription pad, addresses, an ATM card, a credit report, blank checks, and driver’s licenses in multiple other people’s names.” The victims whose names appeared on the documents and who were contacted by the investigators confirmed Powers did not have permission to have their identifying information.
The complaint charged Powers with identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(3)), misdemeanor receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and two counts of forgery (§§ 470, subd. (b), 475, subd. (b)). The complaint also alleged as enhancements that (1) Powers suffered a prior conviction that constituted a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), and (2) Powers had served five prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Eleven days after the complaint was filed, Powers entered into the above described plea agreement. She completed a “Felony Advisement, Waiver of Rights, and Plea Form” wherein she was advised of, and waived, her constitutional rights, and was advised of the consequences of her plea. The form states Powers was agreeing to a stipulated seven-year term in the California Department of Corrections, and described how that sentence was to be calculated.
When accepting the plea, the trial court confirmed with counsel that the parties agreed to a stipulated seven-year prison term, and confirmed the remaining terms of the agreement. The trial court next confirmed with Powers that she wanted to enter into the plea agreement. Powers confirmed she had completed the plea form, confirmed she understood and wanted to give up her trial rights, pled no contest to the charge, and admitted the enhancements. The remaining charges and enhancements were dismissed, as were the charges in five other cases. Powers was sentenced to the agreed upon-term at the sentencing hearing.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asserting that after a thorough review of the record he could not identify any arguable issues. By letter dated June 23, 2016, we invited Powers to inform this court of any issues she wished us to address. Powers did not respond to our invitation.
We agree with appellate counsel that there are no arguable issues in this case since Powers knowingly entered into a favorable plea agreement, and the terms of the plea agreement were complied with by the trial court and the prosecutor.
It appears from the file that Powers’s complaint is that she believed she was offered a more favorable plea agreement at some point in time. At the sentencing hearing defense counsel informed the trial court that Powers believed an offer was made which included a five-year prison term. The trial court noted the comment but observed the agreement actually made between the parties clearly included a seven-year prison term. The district attorney confirmed the offer had always been for a seven-year prison term. Powers’s initial notice of appeal sought a certificate of probable cause seeking relief because she was prevented from accepting the purported offer which included a five-year prison term. The trial court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
Powers is not entitled to any relief. There is no evidence in the record she was ever offered a plea agreement that included a five-year prison term. Regardless, the plea agreement into which she voluntarily and knowingly entered clearly included a seven-year prison term.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.