People v. Radcliffe CA1/5

Filed 6/5/14 P. v. Radcliffe CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A140148 v. MARC PATRICK RADCLIFFE, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR 13-71256) Defendant and Appellant.

Marc Patrick Radcliffe appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered a guilty plea and admitted multiple enhancement allegations. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Radcliffe was charged by information with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/212.5, subd. (a)) and attempted first degree burglary (§§ 664/460, subd. (a)).1 It was further alleged that he had two prior strike convictions for felony burglaries (§§ 667, subd. (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), had been convicted of two prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)), and had three prior prison commitments (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

2

At a section 402 hearing on August 19, 2013, Radcliffe asserted a violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) and challenged an in-field identification; the court found there was no Miranda violation and the in-field show-up was not unduly suggestive. On August 20, 2013, while represented by his attorney, Radcliffe entered a guilty plea to the first degree robbery charge and admitted a strike prior, a serious felony prior, and a prior prison term for purposes of sentencing enhancements. (§§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 667, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b).) On the prosecutor’s motion, the remaining counts and allegations were dismissed with a “Harvey waiver.” (See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758.) Before entering his plea, Radcliffe was advised of, understood, and knowingly and voluntarily waived enumerated constitutional rights. The court informed Radcliffe of the consequences of his plea. The court also found a factual basis for the plea, based on the prosecutor’s summary (to which defense counsel stipulated): in February 2013, Radcliffe entered the home of his victims, Sandra and Darrell Dotson, while they were present; Radcliffe and Mr. Dotson engaged in a struggle; Mrs. Dotson was extremely afraid of Radcliffe; and Radcliffe used force to take Mrs. Dotson’s purse. The prosecutor represented that Radcliffe was stipulating to a sentence of 18 years in state prison, based on the aggravated term of six years on the robbery count, doubled due to the prior strike, with an additional five years for the prior serious felony and an additional year for the prior prison commitment. The court advised Radcliffe that it would likely impose the maximum commitment time of 18 years, and Radcliffe agreed that this was the sentence the court was going to impose. The probation department provided the court with a sentencing worksheet, which set forth the components of the stipulated sentence. Radcliffe submitted a letter to the court, stating he was sorry for his actions. He took “full responsibility” for his situation, even though he did not remember the incident. He claimed it was not the “real Marc Radcliffe”; he never intended to steal, hurt, or scare anyone; his actions were not the result of a conscious choice; and the shame he felt was