P. v. Schinaman
Filed 2/28/07 P. v. Schinaman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL SHAWN SCHINAMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | A114445 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. SCR-478010 & SCR-482409) |
Counsel for appellant Michael Shawn Schinaman (appellant) 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 has declared that appellant has been notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this courts attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally.
A felony complaint was filed in Case No. SCR-478010 by the Sonoma County District Attorneys Office on January 25, 2006[1], charging appellant with one count of attempted false imprisonment of Beau Rossini on November 29, 2005 (Pen. Code, 664/207, subd. (a)[2]). It was also alleged as to this count that the offense constituted a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c), and a serious felony within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c). A second count of assault with intent to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)) was charged in the complaint, along with a third count of misdemeanor defacing of property ( 594, subd. (a)). The second count was also alleged to be a serious felony. At the arraignment on the complaint, appellant pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and allegations.
On March 2, a felony complaint in Case No. SCR-482409 was filed by the Sonoma County District Attorneys Office, charging appellant with one count of evading police by motor vehicle (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)), and a misdemeanor count of driving while privileges suspended (Veh. Code, 14601.1, subd. (a)).
That same day, appellant pleaded no contest to the violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), in Case No. SCR-482409, and to the violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) in Case No. SCR-478010. The other charges were dismissed with Harvey waivers as to both cases.[3] The pleas were dependent upon appellant not being sentenced to state prison, but to formal probation, and consideration being given by the prosecutor to reducing violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a) to a misdemeanor. Appellant acknowledged he understood the penal consequences of his pleas, and that he understood and voluntarily consented to a waiver of his constitutional rights by virtue of his pleas, including the right to a preliminary hearing and jury trial, to subpoena and confront witnesses, and to refuse to incrimination himself. Sentencing was scheduled for April 13.
Sentencing ultimately took place on May 10, at which time judgment was suspended, and appellant was placed on three years formal probation, with conditions imposed, including that he serve 10 months in the county jail, and pay a victim restitution fine of $7,383.32. The prosecutor declined to reduce the Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a) violation from a felony to a misdemeanor. Appellant agreed to the terms of probation.
We discern no error in the sentencing or plea disposition. The sentencing choice made by the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, and was well within the discretion of the trial court. The restitution fines and penalties imposed, as well as the other conditions of probation, were supported by the law and facts. At all times appellant was represented by counsel. Upon our independent review of the record we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Ruvolo, P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
[1] All further dates refer to the calendar year 2006 unless otherwise indicated.
[2] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[3]People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
