California Court of Appeal Feb 11, 2015 No. D066084Unpublished
Filed 2/11/15 P. v. Acedo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D066084
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS268470)
DANIEL ACEDO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore
M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Daniel Acedo pleaded guilty to one count of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen.
Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and admitted a weapon allegation (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)).
The trial court sentenced Acedo to two years in prison, ordered him to pay fines and fees,
and retained jurisdiction to determine victim restitution.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but
inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record
for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende,
we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 11, 2013, Acedo and his girlfriend had an argument at a trolley
station. Acedo cut his girlfriend on her left shin with a box cutter, causing a laceration of
approximately a quarter inch. A transit security officer witnessed the assault, which was
also recorded by security cameras.
The People charged Acedo with a felony count of corporal injury to a cohabitant
using a dangerous and deadly weapon (§§ 273.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)) and a
felony count of assault with a deadly weapon (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd.
(c)(23)).
After the preliminary hearing, Acedo waived his right to counsel and chose to
represent himself. On February 5, 2014, Acedo pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a
cohabitant and admitted the weapon allegation. The prosecution agreed to dismiss the
count of assault with a deadly weapon and stipulated to a sentence of two years in prison
with up to 50 percent reduction in time for good conduct. Acedo filed a written guilty
plea acknowledging he had been advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences
of his guilty plea. The court advised Acedo of his rights and the consequences of his
guilty plea. Acedo, under oath, acknowledged he was advised of his constitutional rights
2
and the charges against him. After clarifying the consequences of his guilty plea with the
court, Acedo acknowledged the court advised him of the consequences of his guilty plea.
On March 6, 2013, Acedo filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting the
trial court initiated the plea negotiations, tried to persuade Acedo to accept the plea
bargain and improperly advised him of the consequences of a guilty plea. The motion
was heard by another trial court judge on April 11. The court reviewed Acedo's motion,
supporting affidavits, and the record transcript, and denied the motion.
Acedo filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea, claiming the plea agreement was illegal under section 1192.7, subdivision (a)(2),
because the crime to which he pleaded guilty was a serious felony. The district attorney
stated the case fell within an exception to section 1192.7, subdivision (a)(2), because the
victim was not cooperating and the plea bargain served the public's interest in safety in
view of the victim's minimal injury. Acedo also asserted he had not been advised that
fines and fees would be imposed if he pleaded guilty. When informed he had initialed a
form acknowledging that fines and other reasonable conditions could be imposed, Acedo
stated he had not read the form advising him of his rights and the consequences of a
guilty plea when he initialed the advisements and signed the form. The trial court denied
the motion to reconsider and imposed sentence.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings in the trial court. Counsel has presented no argument for reversal, and
invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra,
3
25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified the following
as possible, but not arguable, issues:
"1. Whether appellant's guilty plea was unlawful, and should be vacated,
because appellant entered into a plea bargain in violation of Penal Code section 1192.7,
subdivision (a)(2), which limits pleas bargaining in cases alleging the commission of a
serious felony?
"2. Whether the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to withdraw his
guilty plea?"
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no
reasonably arguable appellate issue. We granted Acedo permission to file a brief on his
own behalf. He has not responded. Acedo has been represented by competent counsel
on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
4
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
Whether the defendant's guilty plea was unlawful due to an alleged violation of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (a)(2).
Whether the trial court erred by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”