People v. Mejias CA6

Filed 11/26/13 P. v. Mejias CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039365 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Plaintiff and Respondent, Nos. C1066707 and C1094466)

v.

RUBEN ALBERTO MEJIAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION After no contest pleas, defendant Ruben Alberto Mejias was convicted of carjacking, forgery, and first degree burglary. Defendant also admitted having two prior convictions qualifying both as strikes and as serious felonies and a third prior felony conviction for which he served a prison sentence. Following the granting in part of defendant’s motion to dismiss the strike conviction allegations, the trial court sentenced defendant to 33 years in prison. Defendant filed a notice of appeal with a certificate of probable cause claiming that his plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily because his attorney failed to inform him of certain defenses. By letter dated June 19, 2013, this court notified defendant that his appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues on appeal and invited defendant to submit any argument on his own behalf. Defendant responded with a handwritten 11- point list of issues. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the entire record to determine whether appointed counsel has correctly determined that there are no arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) In performing our review, we are required to give a brief description of the facts, the procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed, and to address any contentions personally raised by the defendant. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Defendant was charged by a first amended complaint in docket No. C1066707 with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215)1, selling or aiding in selling stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), all felony offenses occurring on or about January 15, 2010. The complaint alleged two prior convictions qualifying both as strikes and as serious felonies (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12; 667, subd. (a)) and a third prior felony conviction for which defendant served a prison sentence (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At the request of defendant’s attorney, in March 2010 the trial court ordered a psychiatric evaluation to assess defendant’s mental capacity and competency. Based on the court- ordered evaluation, the court found defendant not competent to stand trial and, in August 2010, committed defendant to the State Department of Mental Health for evaluation and treatment to restore competency. Based on a December 2011 Department of Mental Health psychiatric report containing a bipolar disorder diagnosis and a treatment plan involving psychiatric medications, in January 2011 the court found defendant’s competency to have been restored and reinstated criminal proceedings. After the trial court denied defendant’s February 2011 motion to relieve counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, defendant was held to answer on the