P. v. Francis
Filed 8/30/06 P. v. Francis CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH ANTHONY FRANCIS, Defendant and Appellant. | A111829 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC058045 A) |
James Anthony Francis was convicted of petty theft with a prior and sentenced to 32 months in state prison. His attorney has raised no issues on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Francis has also filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Francis attempted to leave a department store with a concealed power tool and jacket that he had not purchased. After he was detained, two glass pipes that appeared to be used to smoke crack cocaine were found on his person. Francis was charged with petty theft with a prior prison term for a theft-related conviction, a felony (count 1; Pen. Code, § 666),[1] and possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). As to count one, it was alleged that Francis had prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), and a prior conviction within the meaning of section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).
Francis moved to suppress his statements to the police on the ground that he was under the influence of controlled substances or psychiatric medication at the time of the interview, rendering his Miranda[2] waiver not knowing or intelligent and his admissions involuntary. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion.
Francis rejected a pretrial sentencing offer of a maximum four-year prison sentence. During a hearing on motions in limine, Francis demanded and obtained from the prosecution a deputy sheriff's report that described Francis's role in preventing an inmate's escape. In light of this mitigating information, the trial judge made a new sentencing offer of a maximum 32-month sentence. Francis accepted the offer and, after the court advised Francis of his rights and established there was a factual basis for the plea, pled no contest to count one and admitted the prior conviction allegations. The court found him guilty of the offense and found the allegations true, and the prosecutor dismissed count two.
Francis moved to dismiss the prior strike allegation pursuant to section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. He wrote that he had a tragic childhood, which led to his drug addiction, and the addiction drove his crimes. He submitted a psychiatric evaluation opining that his chemical dependence and related emotional problems could be addressed through highly structured residential drug treatment. He said he was ready to enroll in a residential treatment program.
The presentencing report stated that Francis had a â€
