California Court of Appeal Nov 26, 2014 No. E061324Unpublished
Filed 11/26/14 P. v. Carter 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E061324
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1304971)
ALEX RAMON CARTER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.
Pace, Judge. Affirmed.
Alex Ramon Carter, in pro. per.; and Trenton C. Packer, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 14, 2013, a complaint charged defendant and appellant Alex Ramon
Carter with felony corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child’s parent under Penal Code
On November 22, 2013, defendant entered into a plea agreement wherein he
agreed to plead guilty to count 1 (felony corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child’s
parent); and count 2 (misdemeanor child abuse). In exchange for his guilty plea, the plea
agreement provided for suspension of the proceedings, four years of formal probation,
and 180 days county jail as a condition of probation. The plea form indicated that the
sentencing range for count 1 was two, three, or four years; and the sentencing range for
count 2 was one year.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, on November 22, 2013, defendant pled guilty to
counts 1 and 2, and the trial court accepted defendant’s guilty plea. On December 26,
2013, the court placed defendant on 48 months of supervised probation, and sentenced
defendant to 180 days in county jail as a condition of probation, to be served on work
release.
On January 28, 2014, the prosecution filed an allegation that defendant violated
probation by failing to serve county jail time as a condition of probation. The court
ordered defendant’s probation revoked. On March 26, 2014, defendant admitted that he
violated his probation. Therefore, the court revoked and terminated defendant’s
probation. The court then sentenced defendant to the low term of two years on count 1
and awarded 150 days of custody credits.
At the probation revocation hearing, defense counsel explained to the court that
defendant had admitted to violating his probation in exchange for the court’s agreement
2
to sentence defendant to the low term of two years. Defendant engaged in a colloquy
with the court in which he indicated that he understood and waived his rights to a
hearing, to be represented by counsel at a hearing, to testify or remain silent, to compel
witnesses to testify on his behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses against him.
On May 29, 2014, defendant filed his notice of appeal. Defendant’s request for a
certificate of probable cause was denied.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. 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 summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has done so. On October 30, 2014, defendant filed a one-page handwritten supplemental
brief. In his brief, it appears that defendant is arguing about the merits of his plea
agreement. Defendant states, “I was looking at my attorney and thinking about how he
told me to take the deal because of my record and that there’s no way I am going to win.
[¶] . . . [¶] Everything that was told to me to induse [sic] my plea is off [the] record, the
court didn’t proceed until they made sure that I was going to agree with everything the
Judge [was] going to say.” Defendant, however, pled guilty in this case, and the trial
court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. Because the trial court denied
defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause, his appeal is limited to “postplea
3
claims, including sentencing issues, that do not challenge the validity of the plea.”
(People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379.) Moreover, defendant argues that he
“didn’t run from probation[.]” Defendant, however, admitted that he violated probation
at his revocation hearing. The court was clear in getting defendant’s waiver, and
indicated from the beginning that “based on [defendant’s] record and the nature of this
offense,” defendant was not going to be placed on probation again.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist,
and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and
our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the
judgment entered against him in this case. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.
4
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the judgment after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, noting that the defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea was barred by the lack of a certificate of probable cause.
Issues
Whether there are any arguable issues on appeal following the defendant's guilty plea and subsequent probation revocation.
Whether the defendant's challenge to the validity of his plea is cognizable absent a certificate of probable cause.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist”