Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Penafiel

P. v. Penafiel

Filed 2/8/07 P. v. Penafiel CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

CARLOS ANTONIO PENAFIEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

G037681

(Super. Ct. No. 04WF2036)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard F. Toohey, Judge. Affirmed.

Carlos Antonio Penafiel, in pro. per.; and Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

1. Introduction

Carlos Antonio Penafiel filed a notice of appeal with this court following the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition, Penafiel requested the trial court to vacate the judgment or, in the alternative, to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. We appointed counsel to represent Penafiel on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel suggested we consider the issue whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Penafiel's petition for writ of error coram nobis.

Penafiel was given 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf. On January 5, 2007, he filed a supplemental brief in support of his appeal.

We have examined the entire record, counsel's Wende brief, and Penafiel's supplemental brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

2. Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court

The felony complaint charged Penafiel with one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and one count of theft with a prior conviction (id., §§ 484, subd. (a), 488, 666). The complaint alleged Penafiel had previously been convicted of a violation of Penal Code section 487, subdivision (a) in Los Angeles County Superior Court, case No. VA078395.

Penafiel initially pleaded not guilty. On July 29, 2004, Penafiel waived his right to a jury trial and entered a guilty plea to both counts, with the understanding he would be placed on felony probation for a period of three years after serving a 90â€‘ day jail term. Penafiel's probation would be subject to the conditions set forth in the plea form. As the factual basis for the guilty plea, the plea form states: â€

Description	Defendant filed a notice of appeal with this court following the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition, Penafiel requested the trial court to vacate the judgment or, in the alternative, to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. Court appointed counsel to represent Penafiel on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that court review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel suggested court consider the issue whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Penafiel's petition for writ of error coram nobis. Penafiel was given 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf. On January 5, 2007, he filed a supplemental brief in support of his appeal. Court examined the entire record, counsel's Wende brief, and Penafiel's supplemental brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Court therefore affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.