California Court of Appeal Nov 6, 2014 No. E061325Unpublished
Filed 11/6/14 P. v. Ruiz CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061325
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1400672)
JOSEPH RAUL RUIZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Victor R. Stull,
Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Joseph Raul Ruiz pled no contest to first degree burglary
(count 5; Pen. Code, § 459). As provided in the plea agreement, the court granted
defendant three years formal probation.
After counsel filed the notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent
1
defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case, a statement of the facts, and identifying two potentially arguable issues:
§ 496, subd. (a).) On May 23, 2014, defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby he
pled no contest to an interlineated count 5 charge of first degree burglary in return for the
People’s agreement to drop the allegation that a person was present, dismissal of the
remaining counts, dismissal of two other misdemeanor cases charged against him, and a
grant of three years formal probation.
Defendant initialed the boxes adjacent to the provisions of his plea agreement
informing him of his rights and the consequences of his plea. Defendant initialed the box
3 Officer Mena transported Guerrero to the police station in a separate vehicle.
3
next to item No. 19, the statement reflecting he had had sufficient time to consult with his
attorney regarding the plea and that his attorney had explained everything in the
agreement to him. Defendant signed the plea agreement. Defense counsel signed the
plea agreement reflecting she had “personally read and explained the contents of the”
agreement to defendant.
The court asked defendant if he had reviewed the plea agreement with his lawyer
before initialing the boxes and signing it. Defendant responded he had. The court noted,
“Paragraph 5 that you initialed talks about Constitutional Rights that citizens enjoy that
you are giving up to change your plea[] today. I don’t need to go over those any further,
do I, [defendant]?” Defendant responded the court did not. The court found defendant
understood his rights and intelligently waived them. Defendant entered his plea.
The court referred the matter out for the preparation of a probation officer’s report
prior to sentencing. During the probation interview, defendant admitted using marijuana
and beer. The probation officer recommended that “[s]hould the court decide to impose a
felony grant of probation, drug terms should be added based on admitted use.” The
probation officer’s recommended term No. 16 reads that defendant, “Neither possess nor
consume any alcoholic beverages nor enter places where such beverages are the chief
item of sale[]” and “[s]ubmit to tests at the direction of the probation officer.”
At the sentencing hearing on June 9, 2014, defense counsel specifically objected
“to all the drug terms,” including term No. 16. The court ruled, “the request [regarding]
the drug terms will be denied. I leave that—those types of things up to the sound
discretion of the probation department.” The court granted defendant three years formal
4
probation, term No. 16 of which required that defendant, “Neither possess nor consume
any alcoholic beverages nor enter places where such beverages are the chief item of sale,
and submit to tests at the direction of the probation officer.”
DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
did not do so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
(People v. Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 131, 147 [constitutional validity of plea reviewed
under totality of the circumstances]; People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 68-69
[appellate court must show deference to trial court’s determination of appropriate
conditions of probation such as imposition of alcohol probation term even in case where
alcohol was not directly implicated in crime].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
RICHLI J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and probation terms after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether the defendant's plea was constitutionally valid.
Whether the alcohol-related probation terms should be stricken.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.”