P. v. Ortiz
On March 20, 2006, a criminal complaint was filed alleging appellant, conspired with his wife, Cynthia Morlino to offer to sell or furnish marijuana to a person held in a state prison (Pen. Code, 182, subd. (a)(1) & 4573.9, count one),[1]Ortiz and Morlino offered to sell or furnish marijuana to a person held in state prison ( 4573.9, count two), and Ortiz and Morlino unlawfully brought a controlled substance into a state prison ( 4573, count three).
On July 20, 2006, Ortiz appeared in court and entered into a plea agreement wherein he would admit count three and the other counts would be dismissed. Ortiz would be given the three year midterm. Ortiz was advised of the consequences of his plea and given his constitutional advisements. Ortiz waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Ortiz pled guilty to count three. Ortiz waived preparation of a probation report and to his right to appeal. The court sentenced Ortiz to the three-year midterm to be served consecutively to the sentence for which Ortiz was already in prison. The court imposed a restitution fine. Appellant has not obtained a certificate of probable cause.
Ortizs appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to independently review the record. (Peoplev. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that Ortiz was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on November 7, 2006, Court invited Ortiz to submit additional briefing.
Ortiz responded with a letter asserting his plea was not knowing and intelligent because Morlinos freedom was at stake. Ortiz asserts that after a meeting with his attorney and Morlinos attorney, if he admitted the allegations, she would be granted probation. Ortiz states he is unaware of Morlinos sentence. Ortiz asserts error because the trial court severed his case from Morlinos case. Ortiz states he is unaware of his wifes whereabouts.
Comments on P. v. Ortiz