People v. Goree CA1/5

Filed 2/28/25 P. v. Goree CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170943 v. MELVIN GOREE, (Alameda County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 19CR019121A)

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Melvin Goree pleaded no contest to one count of second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 459) in exchange for a grant of probation and dismissal of a second count of the same offense.1 As part of the plea agreement, defendant executed a so-called Cruz waiver,2 pursuant to which he was released from custody in exchange for his promise to, among other things, not commit other crimes, cooperate with probation, and appear at sentencing. After defendant violated

1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Penal

Code. 2 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5 [absent a valid

waiver, a court may not reject the plea bargain of a defendant who has pleaded guilty and failed to appear for sentencing, then impose a higher sentence without first giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea].)

1

this Cruz waiver, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced him to two years in prison. After defendant appealed, his appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (People v. Kelly) raising no issue for review and requesting that we conduct our own independent review of the record. Defendant did not exercise his right to file a supplemental brief. Having considered the record in accordance with People v. Wende and People v. Kelly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed charging defendant with two counts of second degree burglary of a vehicle (§ 459). These charges arose from a series of incidents on or around December 5, 2019, involving defendant and two codefendants. Police officers were dispatched to an apartment complex in the City of Fremont to respond to reports of several automobile burglaries. The officers found one vehicle with a shattered window and several missing boxes and shopping bags. The officers were also advised of a stolen Mercedes. The stolen Mercedes was subsequently involved in an accident in the City of Modesto. Defendant was detained and taken into custody by police after being observed walking away from the accident. A search of the Mercedes led to the discovery of property taken during automobile burglaries occurring in Alameda and Stanislaus Counties. Defendant initially pleaded not guilty to the charges. However, on December 3, 2020, he withdrew this plea and entered a plea of no contest to one of the two counts of second degree burglary of a vehicle in exchange for dismissal of the second count. On the same day, defendant executed a Cruz