P. v. Ruiz
Filed 2/28/07 P. v. Ruiz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMSES TORRES RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant. | G037633 (Super. Ct. No. 04CF3451) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed.
Jamie L. Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Ramses Torres Ruiz filed a notice of appeal with this court following the judgment of conviction ordering him to prison for 18 years following his plea of guilty to attempted (unpremeditated) murder, enhanced by terms for the infliction of great bodily injury and for having a prior serious felony conviction. (See Pen. Code, 187, 664, 667, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a).) Enhancements for a prior prison term and for the use of a deadly weapon were stricken for purposes of sentencing. (See Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b), 12022, subd. (b).) No certificate of probable cause was obtained. Thus, the appeal is limited to issues arising after entry of the plea that do not challenge its validity or involve a search or seizure. (See Pen. Code, 1237.5.)
We appointed counsel to represent Ruiz on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against the client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. We have examined the entire record ourselves to determine if any arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
The charges arose from, as stated in Ruizs change of plea form, an incident in which he willfully and unlawfully attempted to kill Mario Torres, a human being. [Ruiz] further admit[ted] that during the commission of this crime, [he] personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, and that [he] personally inflicted great bodily harm on Mario Torres. That change of plea form also recorded Ruiz was informed of his rights in connection with these charges, the maximum penalty he faced and his waiver of all rights including his right to appeal from any and all decisions and orders made in [his] case . . . [including his] right to appeal from [his] guilty plea.
Counsel declared that she investigated the following two potential issues: (1) Was the denial of the motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995 proper? (2) Was Ruiz admission of the prior serious felony adequately received and recorded? Based on the authority of People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 and People v. Batista (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1288, the first issue was properly resolved without briefing. Based on In re Moss (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 913, 925-928, the second issue was properly resolved without briefing.
Ruiz was informed of his right to file written argument in his own behalf and given 30 days in which to do it. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from Ruiz.
After examination of the entire record, we find no other issue to argue. The judgment is affirmed.
SILLS, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
RYLAARSDAM, J.
MOORE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
