People v. Carrillo CA5

Filed 7/15/15 P. v. Carrillo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F069110 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13912021) v.

ADAM VINCENT CARRILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David A. Gottlieb, Judge. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Adam Vincent Carrillo pled no contest to felony attempting to dissuade a witness from prosecuting a crime and misdemeanor infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 stating he failed to identify any arguable issues on appeal. By letter dated July 10, 2014, we invited Carrillo to identify any grounds he wished this court to address in this appeal. Carrillo did not respond to our letter. Our independent review of the record did not discover any arguable issues in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The first amended complaint charged Carrillo with three felonies, two counts of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and one count of attempting to dissuade a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)). A plea agreement was reached wherein Carrillo agreed to plead no contest to one misdemeanor count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and to the felony count of dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining count and agreed to not seek a prison commitment. Carrillo completed the “Felony Advisement, Waiver of Rights, and Plea Form.” He thereby was informed of his trial rights, the consequences of the plea, including the fact the felony would be a strike conviction pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and that he faced a maximum sentence of three years in prison. Carrillo also waived his trial rights in the plea form. The trial court confirmed Carrillo (1) wanted to accept the plea agreement, (2) had had ample time to discuss the case with his attorney, and (3) initialed and signed the plea form. The trial court advised Carrillo (1) he faced possible deportation if he was not a