People v. Cotey CA5

Filed 6/2/15 P. v. Cotey CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068841 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCR013431) v.

JOHN WILLIAM COTEY II, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Michael Allen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

John William Cotey II pled guilty to possession of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a))1 and admitted a prior strike conviction. He was sentenced to the agreed- upon term of four years in prison. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 stating that after reviewing the record, he did not identify any arguable issues. By letter dated June 20, 2014, we invited Cotey to submit additional briefing. Corey responded to our invitation by letter. We have reviewed the record and Cotey’s letter and conclude there are no arguable issues in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Initially, three separate complaints were filed against Cotey. The operative pleading was the first amended information that was filed after the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to consolidate the actions. The first amended information charged Cotey with transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), transportation of a controlled substance (id., § 11352, subd. (a)), possession of stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), misdemeanor possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)), and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a).) The information also alleged as enhancements to counts 1, 2, and 3 that Cotey had (1) suffered a prior conviction that constituted a strike within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and (2) served a prison sentence as a result of a prior conviction within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Cotey entered into a plea agreement that required him to plead guilty to possession of stolen property and to admit the prior conviction that constituted a strike. In exchange, the remaining counts and enhancement would be dismissed, and he would be sentenced to a prison term of four years (midterm of two years, doubled because of the prior conviction). Cotey retained the right to argue at sentencing that his prior conviction did