Filed 9/27/17 P. v. Rosalez CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Appellant Jared Silverio Rosalez pleaded no contest to two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) [knife]), and two counts of assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Appellant also admitted the truth of the allegations that during the commission of each offense he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12207.7, subd. (a)), and personally used a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1). As part of the plea agreement, appellant expressly waived all section 654 issues. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 20 years, 8 months. At the sentencing hearing, after sentence had been imposed, defense counsel advised the court that appellant had just advised him that he wanted to withdraw his plea and have “another attorney . . . look into the issue.” The trial court disregarded this belated request, and continued to advise appellant about the possibility of being placed on parole after completing the sentence.

Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel submitted a declaration stating that she notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally. Upon review of the record for potential error, we conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND[2]

On April 22, 2015, appellant and Vinn Galvan were together at a homeless encampment near Foods Etc. in Clearlake, California. They had known each other for approximately six months. The two men began arguing because appellant kicked Galvan’s dog. While Galvan was seated in a chair, appellant stabbed him multiple times and cut his throat before fleeing. Galvan was able to walk to the Food Etc. loading area to call for help. He was then flown to a hospital and treated for his injuries. He received stitches for a four inch laceration on the front of his neck and staples and stitches for five abdominal puncture wounds.

After stabbing Galvan, appellant fled to a Tower Mart store in Clearlake Oaks. As Gerald Stahlman and his mother left the store, appellant approached them and asked for water. Appellant grabbed Stahlman by his shoulder, pulled him towards him, and stabbed him in his lower chest. Appellant then fled on foot. A short time later appellant was located on the side of the road one mile from the Tower Mart. Prior to his arrest, deputies saw him throw an object to the ground. When searching that spot deputies recovered a folding blade, pocket knife.

Appellant admitted that he had stabbed both men. He told investigators that he had been carrying knives on the night of the attacks because “he felt like going on a killing spree or some crazy shit for cho mos (child molesters) and shit” and the victims were giving him “weird vibes.” He also admitted that he had been high on methamphetamine and alcohol at the time of the attacks. During his interview with the probation department, appellant reported that Galvan had “ ‘said some stuff’ ” that made him think Galvan was a child molester. As to Stahlman, appellant reported that he “ ‘had already done it [stabbed someone], so it didn’t really matter.’ ” Probation noted that appellant “displayed a total lack of remorse for his crimes.”

DISCUSSSION

Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal. We note that appellant did not receive a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of this plea. In any event, we conclude there was a factual basis for the plea and appellant was advised of the consequences of entering the plea. The sentencing choices made by the trial court were consistent with the plea negotiated, they were supported by substantial evidence, and were well within the discretion of the trial court.

To the extent it could be argued that the trial court erred in failing to address appellant’s belated request to withdraw his plea, we conclude that any such error would be harmless under any recognized legal standard for prejudice. (People v. Valdez (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1633, 1639-1640 [where trial court errs in disposing of a motion to withdraw plea, “[a] defendant suffers no prejudice where there are no legal grounds for withdrawal of the plea.”) “A plea may not be withdrawn simply because the defendant has changed his mind.” (People v. Nance (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1456.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

REARDON, J.

We concur:

_________________________

RUVOLO, P. J.

_________________________

STREETER, J.

A148894 People v. Rosalez