California Court of Appeal Sep 30, 2014 No. D063662Unpublished
Filed 9/30/14 P. v. Garcia CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063662
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF29787)
DINO GARCIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D.
Lehman, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorney General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Dino Garcia pled no contest to one count of possession of a controlled
substance in a prison facility and admitted to having suffered a prior felony conviction.
The trial court sentenced Garcia to the low term of two years, doubled to four, pursuant to
the plea agreement.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but
Garcia's appointed counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings
below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the judgment, but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies the following as possible, but not arguable,
issues for our review:
(1) "Did the court err in denying petitioner's motion to withdraw his plea, or appoint counsel to file a habeas corpus petition?"
(2) "Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the charge before advising appellant to accept a negotiated plea?"
(3) "Did the court properly sentence appellant?"
With respect to the third question, counsel identified the following subquestions:
(a) "Was appellant disqualified from [the Criminal Justice Realignment Act] scheme based on his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon as defined in Penal Code section 245 subd. (a)(1)?"
(b) "Did the court err by not granting appellant any credits for time served, in that the present charge was designated to run consecutively?"
(c) "Did the court property apply the fines imposed at sentencing?"
We granted Garcia permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
Garcia filed a supplemental brief in which he raised the question whether the trial court
erred in failing to sentence him pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a),
4
by failing to aggregate his sentence in the current case with the sentence in his prior case.
We requested that counsel for Garcia and the Attorney General file supplemental briefing
addressing issues related to the possible application of Penal Code section 1170.1,
subdivision (a).
A review of these supplemental briefs and the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has ultimately disclosed no reasonably
arguable appellate issues. Garcia has been competently represented by counsel in this
appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Issues
Did the court err in denying the motion to withdraw the plea or appoint counsel for a habeas petition?
Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate the charge?
Did the court properly sentence the appellant?
Did the court err in failing to aggregate the sentence with a prior case under Penal Code section 1170.1?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, and after having sought additional briefing from the parties, we affirm.”
“A review of these supplemental briefs and the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has ultimately disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.”