People v. Sanchez CA1/1

Filed 8/8/14 P. v. Sanchez CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140422 v. BLAS ENRIQUE SANCHEZ, JR., (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR931894) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Blas Enrique Sanchez, Jr. appeals from a final judgment after a plea of no contest. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which counsel raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Counsel attests that defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have received no such brief. We have examined the entire record in accordance with Wende. We conclude that no arguable issue exists on appeal and affirm. Procedural Background On September 25, 2013, the Lake County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with a felony violation of possession of drug paraphernalia in a place where prisoners are located (Pen. Code, 1 § 4573.6). The information further alleged that

1 Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

defendant had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and that he was ineligible to serve a sentence in local custody due to a prior violent felony (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3)). On October 1, 2013, defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied all allegations. On November 4, 2013, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to the single charge in the information (possession of drug paraphernalia in a place where prisoners are located, a felony violation of § 4573.6), in exchange for dismissal of the prior strike and the three prior prison terms, with a stipulated sentence of three years, to be served consecutive to defendant’s current prison sentence. Prior to the plea, defendant completed a plea form, and stated on the record that he understood the terms and conditions of the plea. Defendant acknowledged that he understood that the sentence would be three years in state prison, and that it would be consecutive to the term that he was currently serving. On December 2, 2013, the court sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea agreement, i.e., three years to run consecutive to his current sentence. Defendant was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $720 under section 1202.4, a court operation assessment of $40 under section 1465.8, and a criminal conviction assessment of $30 under Government Code section 70373. The court stated that this is a “half time case.” At sentencing the court asked if there was argument and the prosecutor responded, “I believe it’s a stipulated sentence.” The court responded, “It was, stipulated three years.” Defense counsel said, “I have some comments. I’m not sure they amount to argument. [¶] . . . [¶] They amount to whining more than anything else.” Defense counsel then argued that defendant’s three-year sentence could be subordinate to his current prison sentence, which would reduce his three-year sentence for possession of paraphernalia in prison to one-third of the middle term for the offense (§ 1170.1, subd. (a)). The court disagreed with this view, finding that defendant was not entitled to the benefit of section 1170.1, subdivision (a), for the current offense because it was committed while defendant was in a state prison, rendering section 1170.1, subdivision