People v. Williams CA1/4

Filed 11/8/13 P. v. Williams CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139285 v. JAMAINE ADELL WILLIAMS, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC078561A) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Jamaine Adell Williams appeals from his conviction and resulting sentence following his no-contest plea to one count of taking and driving a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel’s declaration states she has notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Counsel also advised appellant of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally. We note that appellant has not obtained a certificate of probable cause, which is required by Penal Code section 1237.5 when a defendant seeks to appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty or no contest plea. Although no certificate of probable cause was sought, we nevertheless exercise our discretion to review the entire record to determine if there are any potentially meritorious issues that require briefing.

1

Accordingly, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having done so, we conclude that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Procedural and Material Factual Background of Case A three-count felony amended complaint was filed by the San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office on July 9, 2013,1 charging appellant with one felony count of taking and driving a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), one felony count of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and one misdemeanor count of driving a motor vehicle while driving privileges are suspended (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a).) Apparently, between the time of filing the original criminal complaint and the amended complaint on July 9, a written motion to suppress evidence was filed by appellant on July 3, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. At the time for the preliminary hearing on July 9, it was agreed that the parties would present testimony both in connection with the motion to suppress evidence and the preliminary hearing. The court agreed to hear arguments first on the pending motion to suppress, before making a decision whether to hold appellant to answer the charges alleged in the amended complaint. In the event the trial court decided to deny the motion to suppress, the parties would then either present a negotiated plea disposition, or they would continue with the preliminary hearing. Three witnesses were called to testify in connection with the combined hearing. The first was Burlingame police officer Josef Fregosi. At the conclusion of the police officer’s testimony, the defense called Nathaniel Knapp, a long-time friend of appellant, to testify, who was followed by appellant himself. At the conclusion of the witnesses’