Filed 4/23/18 P. v. Merida CA4/3







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRIAN ANGEL MERIDA,

Defendant and Appellant.


G051622

(Super. Ct. No. 10CF1982)

O P I N I O N
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James Edward Rogan, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Matthew Missakian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
Brian Angel Merida pleaded guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code. §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a); all statutory citations are to the Penal Code) and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). He also admitted the attempted murder offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). Merida appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Our review of the record discloses no arguable issues. Merida waived his right to appeal in conjunction with his guilty plea. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In February 2010, a drive-by shooter shot Arnulfo Bustamante twice in Santa Ana. Witnesses identified Merida as the driver of the green sports utility vehicle involved in the shooting. Detective Eric Rivas of the Santa Ana Police Department found Merida working on a vehicle matching the suspect vehicle. He detained Merida, and opened the glove box to obtain the vehicle’s registration information. He discovered a black metal loaded handgun covered with a black handkerchief. A records check showed the gun had been reported stolen.
In September 2011, the Orange County District Attorney filed an information charging Merida and Bryan Gonzalez with attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)), active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), conspiracy (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)), and unlawful carrying of a loaded firearm in public (§ 12031, subd. (a)(1), (a)(2)(D)). The information also alleged Merida committed the attempted murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and was a principal in the commission of a felony in which a gang member discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d), (e)(1)).
In July 2013, Merida filed a motion to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5). The court denied the motion in February 2014. In January 2015, Merida executed a waiver of rights and guilty plea form and pleaded guilty as noted above. The court dismissed the remaining counts and enhancements. As part of the plea agreement, Merida waived his appellate rights, including the right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
In January 2015, the trial court sentenced Merida in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement to 17 years in prison, comprised of the middle term of seven years for attempted murder, plus 10 years for the gang enhancement. The court stayed (§ 654) a midterm of two years for active gang participation. Merida received custody credit of 2,061 days. The court also imposed various fines and fees, and ordered Merida to register as a gang member pursuant to section 186.30.
Merida appealed, noting his appeal was from denial of his motion to suppress. His appointed lawyer filed a brief challenging imposition of a $75 administrative fee in connection with DNA collection. The trial court subsequently transmitted a letter stating the fee had been entered as a result of clerical error. The trial court corrected the record, and transmitted a supplemental record and an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the correction. We granted Merida’s request to strike his opening brief and accepted counsel’s Wende brief. Merida did not file a supplemental brief. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)


II
DISCUSSION
Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. To assist the court in its review, counsel identified possible issues for our consideration: whether denial of the motion to suppress evidence is cognizable on appeal where the right to appeal that denial was waived on the plea form; whether Merida’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; and whether imposition of the $75 administrative fee was unlawful, and whether any error is moot. We have reviewed the entire record under the guidelines of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the matters identified by counsel, and have not identified any arguable issues that would result in a disposition more favorable to Merida. Because Merida waived his right to appeal as part of the guilty plea agreement, the appeal should be dismissed.
III
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.



ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:



O’LEARY, P. J.



IKOLA, J.