California Court of Appeal Aug 27, 2013 No. E058213Unpublished
Filed 8/27/13 P. v. O’Hara CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058213
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. RIF1203700, RIF1210587, RIF1210589 & BRANDON SCOTT O’HARA, RIF1210605)
Defendant and Appellant. OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Helios (Joe) Hernandez,
Judge. Affirmed.
Beatrice C. Tillman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Brandon Scott O’Hara pled guilty to various counts and
had others dismissed pursuant to plea agreements in four cases. In accordance with the
1
agreements, he was sentenced to a total of seven years and ordered to pay $1,000 in
restitution in addition to specified fines, assessments, and fees. We affirm the judgments.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On July 9, 2012, defendant was charged in a felony complaint with committing
grand theft (count 1; Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (count 2;
possession of drug paraphernalia (count 6; Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1). Count 1
allegedly took place on October 31, 2012; counts 2 through 6 allegedly occurred on
November 20, 2012. This case was assigned case No. RIF1210589.
On or about December 6, 2012,1 defendant was charged in a felony complaint
with possession of methamphetamine (count 1; Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)),
misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (count 2; Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1),
and misdemeanor resisting arrest (count 3; Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). These crimes
allegedly occurred on October 8, 2012. It was further alleged that defendant had suffered
two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike (Pen. Code,
§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1)). This case was assigned case No. RIF1210605.
On December 20, 2012, defendant entered into plea agreements in each of the four
cases. Under the agreements, defendant would plead guilty to certain charges, other
charges would be dismissed, and he would be sentenced to a total term of seven years in
prison.
On January 14, 2013, defendant’s pleas were withdrawn and new plea agreements
entered into. Under the agreement regarding case No. RIF1203700, defendant agreed to
plead guilty to count 1 (grand theft) and admit the strike allegation based on the condition
1 The copy of the complaint in our record is not file stamped. It was signed on behalf of the district attorney on December 6, 2012, and the record shows defendant was arraigned on the charges in the complaint on December 6, 2012.
3
that he would be sentenced to a term of four years. He would receive credit for 100 days.
He acknowledged that he would be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,000 in
case No. RIF1203700.
Under the agreement for case No. RIF1210587, defendant agreed to plead guilty to
count 1 (unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle) based on the condition that he would be
sentenced to a consecutive term of 16 months.
In case No. RIF1210589, defendant agreed to plead guilty to count 1 (unlawfully
taking or driving a vehicle) and admit a strike prior based on the condition that he would
be sentenced to a consecutive term of 16 months.
In case No. RIF1210605, defendant agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor
possession of methamphetamine based on the condition that he would be sentenced to a
consecutive term of 120 days.
Under the agreements, defendant would serve a total term of seven years.
At a hearing, the court confirmed defendant’s knowing and intelligent waiver of
his rights and his understanding of the consequences of his pleas, and defendant admitted
facts establishing the factual basis for the charges to which he was pleading guilty. The
court approved the plea agreements and pronounced sentence in accordance with the plea
agreements. In case No. RIF1203700, defendant was ordered to pay $1,000 in restitution.
Certain fines, assessments, and fees were also imposed.
4
The abstracts of judgment reflect the sentence as pronounced and include the
fines, assessments, and fees as specified by the court. The abstract of judgment for case
No. RIF1203700 includes an order to pay restitution in the amount of $1,000.
The original abstracts of judgment in case Nos. RIF1210587 and RIF1210589
indicate an order to pay $1,000 in restitution. This is contrary to both the plea
agreements and the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Defendant’s appellate
counsel brought this clerical error to the attention of the trial court, which then ordered
the error corrected. New abstracts of judgment for case Nos. RIF1210587 and
RIF1210589 that omit any order to pay restitution have been issued.
II. ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed from the judgment in each of his four cases “based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” He did not indicate he was
challenging the validity of his plea and neither requested nor procured a certificate of
probable cause.
Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
factual summary, and one potential arguable issue: whether defendant was sentenced
according to his guilty plea agreement on all four cases.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
5
have conducted an independent review of the record for potential error and find no
arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentences, finding no arguable issues after an independent review of the record following the filing of a Wende brief.
Issues
Whether the defendant was sentenced in accordance with his guilty plea agreements across four cases.