People v. Trevino CA5

Filed 10/18/13 P. v. Trevino CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F064891 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F11903466, v. F10904144)

LORENZO GILBERT TREVINO, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge. Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION On May 12, 2011, appellant, Lorenzo Gilbert Trevino, Jr. pled guilty in Fresno Superior Court case No. F10904144, to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459 & 460, subd. (b))1 and admitted a prior serious felony conviction under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12). Appellant appealed this conviction and on July 31, 2013, we issued our opinion in case No. F063621, rejecting appellant’s challenge to the number of his custody credits and affirming his conviction.2 On January 26, 2012, the trial court denied appellant’s motion made pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. On February 6, 2012, a first amended information was filed in Fresno Superior Court case No. F11903466, alleging that on June 5, 2011, appellant committed second degree robbery (§ 211, count 1) and petty theft with a qualifying prior petty theft conviction (§ 666, count 2). The information further alleged a prior serious felony conviction under the three strikes law and two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On that same date, the parties entered into a plea agreement in which appellant would admit petty theft with a prior, the prior serious felony conviction, and a prior prison term enhancement in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations. Appellant signed and initialed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form acknowledging the terms of the plea agreement and the consequences of his plea. Appellant further waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Boykin/Tahl). The court advised