California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 2015 No. D066001Unpublished
Filed 2/19/15 P. v. George CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D066001
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN320305)
ALEXANDER S. GEORGE ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos O.
Armour, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant and Appellant Alexander S. George pled guilty to two counts of
robbery growing out of a single incident in 2013 in which he flashed a shiny object at an
employee of a Taco Bell restaurant and demanded money from a cash register and then
flashed the object at a second employee in an attempt to get her to open the restaurant's
safe. (Pen. Code,1 § 211.) Defendant also admitted that he personally used a deadly and
dangerous weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life
on count 1; the court also imposed a consecutive five-year term for a prior serious felony
plus a one-year term for the personal use of a dangerous weapon. The court ordered the
same sentence on the second robbery conviction in count 2, to be served concurrently,
and struck a one-year prison prior. The court ordered defendant to pay various fines and
fees, and awarded actual credits and section 2933.1 conduct credits.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment, and the trial court
granted his request for a certificate of probable cause. Appointed counsel filed a brief
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the
case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel suggested the following as possible, but
not arguable, issues on appeal: (1) Was defendant properly advised of the consequences
of pleading guilty? (2) Was defendant advised of his constitutional rights, and did he
waive them before he pleaded guilty? (3) Did the court abuse its discretion by declining
to strike any of defendant's four strike priors? (4) Did the court give proper reasons for
declining to exercise its discretion. (See People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13
Cal.4th 497, 531-532; People v Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
We granted defendant leave to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has done so.
In his brief, supported by declarations from his mother, father and sister, he complains
that he felt pressured by his retained counsel to change his plea and that his counsel
suggested he would be sentenced to a maximum of 18 years.
We have independently reviewed the entire record and have found no reasonably
arguable issues. (See People v Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 438.) We therefore affirm.
DISCUSSION
The record shows that on February 25, 2014, at the change of plea hearing,
defendant indicated that he would be pleading guilty; that he understood the nature of the
charges against him, the possible defenses and the consequences of his pleading guilty;
that he had not taken any drugs, alcohol or other medication in the last 24 hours; and that
he had enough time to go over his case with his attorney. The court reviewed the
specifics of the change of plea form with defendant and added: "Do you understand that
there is no agreement between you and the People for your plea and admission to those
priors?" Defendant replied, "Yes."
The court also asked defendant if he understood the following: (1) the maximum
consequence of his plea is 62 years to life; (2) he was subject to a $10,000 fine; (3) he
was subject to parole for at least 10 years or for life; (4) that the offenses he was
admitting to constituted two additional strikes; (5) he would be deported if he was not a
citizen; (5) at sentencing, his attorney would present a motion for the court to consider
striking some of the prior strikes—but the sentence would be up to the court's discretion
and defendant "could very well be sentenced to 62-years-to-life"; (7) his future period of
incarceration would count as a prison prior; his maximum credits would be 15 percent;
3
and, if he were to be sentenced to the full extent, it would be a life sentence. Defendant
answered "yes" to all of the trial court's questions.
Defendant then admitted that on or about June 17, 2013, he committed two counts
of robbery and personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon as to both counts; he also
admitted all prior allegations. Defendant stipulated to the facts of the two current
offenses as contained in the preliminary hearing transcript—as did defense counsel and
the prosecutor. Defense counsel indicated that he concurred with defendant's entry of
plea and waiver of constitutional rights. The court then accepted the plea of guilty by
finding that defendant had made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his
constitutional rights and that there was a factual basis for the admission.
At the April 21, 2014 sentencing hearing, the court indicated it had read and
considered the probation officer's report, the prosecution's statement in aggravation, the
defense statement in mitigation, including support letters, and the defense Romero
motion. The probation report indicated that defendant's criminal record included four
armed robberies at Taco Bell restaurants for which he was convicted in 2007. The court
said it had reviewed case law "as to when the Court should exercise [its] discretion to
striking strikes," and added, "[a]nd for me to do so, I think, would fall short of what a
reasonable judge would do under these circumstances." The court said it had reviewed
all factors, which included "the current and past offenses, his background, character and
prospect in the future," and determined those factors do "not support a finding that relief
under the three strikes law is warranted." The court concluded that it "would not be a
reasonable exercise by this Court to grant" the defense motion. The court then denied the
4
defense motion to strike the prior strikes and sentenced defendant to 25 years to life plus
six years.
In light of this record, we find no basis upon which to relieve defendant from his
plea or the sentence imposed by the trial court. Defendant has been competently
represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, finding no reasonably arguable issues on appeal after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Was the defendant properly advised of the consequences of pleading guilty?
Was the defendant advised of his constitutional rights and did he waive them?
Did the court abuse its discretion by declining to strike any of the defendant's four strike priors?
Did the court provide proper reasons for declining to exercise its discretion to strike priors?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the entire record and have found no reasonably arguable issues.”
“The court then accepted the plea of guilty by finding that defendant had made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights and that there was a factual basis for the admission.”