People v. Robles CA6

Filed 11/10/14 P. v. Robles CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040968 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS131927A)

v.

MARIO VILLEGAS ROBLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Mario Villegas Robles (defendant) pleaded no contest to one count of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle by a felon. (Pen. Code, § 25400, subds. (a)(1), (c)(1).) Defendant admitted that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). In exchange for his no contest pleas, defendant was promised a maximum prison term of four years and that his Romero1 motion would be heard at the time of sentencing. Subsequently, on April 22, 2014, the court denied defendant's request to strike the prior conviction allegation and sentenced defendant pursuant to the terms of the negotiated disposition. The court imposed the midterm of two years doubled pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). The court imposed various fines and fees, including a $1,200 restitution fund fine (id., § 1202.4, subd. (b)), which the court calculated as "$300 times the number of years times the number of felony counts."

1 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

The court awarded defendant 172 days of presentence custody credits—86 actual days and 86 days of conduct credits. (Id., § 4019.) On the motion of the district attorney, the court dismissed several remaining charges. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on April 28, 2014, in which he appealed from the judgment on the ground that the court had committed sentencing error. Defendant's appointed counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised. Counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, that an independent review under Wende was being requested, and that defendant was notified that he could file a supplemental brief with this court. On July 25, 2014, by letter, we notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That time has passed and we have not received a response from defendant. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there are no arguable issues on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.) Facts and Proceedings Below2 On September 18, 2013, at approximately 9:00 p.m., two detectives from the Monterey County Sheriff's Department were in Salinas searching for a vehicle suspected to have been involved in home burglaries; the car was being driven by an adult male.