California Court of Appeal Sep 8, 2015 No. E063576Unpublished
Filed 9/8/15 P. v. Adkins 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E063576
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1500302)
WILLIAM D. ADKINS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith C. Clark, Judge.
Affirmed.
Nancy S. Brandt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant William D.
Adkins pled guilty to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)); in return,
the remaining charges and enhancement allegations were dismissed and defendant was
1
sentenced to a stipulated term of one year four months in state prison with credit for time
served. Defendant appeals from the judgment, challenging the validity of the plea based
on ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count 2); and misdemeanor
driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 3). The
information further alleged that defendant had suffered two prior prison terms within the
meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On March 11, 2015, defendant filed a motion to suppress the warrantless detention
and search. Before the motion was heard, on March 20, 2015, defendant entered into a
negotiated plea. He pled guilty to count 2 in exchange for a stipulated term of one year
3
four months in state prison, and dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations. As
part of his plea agreement, the People agreed that no further charges would be brought
concerning property in or on the vehicle. Defendant also waived his right to appeal
except issues pertaining to ineffective assistance of counsel. After directly examining
defendant, the trial court found that defendant understood the nature of the charges and
the consequences of the plea; that the plea was entered into freely, voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently; and that there was a factual basis for the plea.
On April 3, 2015, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement
and awarded 189 days presentence credit for time served.
On May 11, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal and request for certificate of
probable cause, challenging the validity of the plea based on ineffective assistance of
counsel. On May 13, 2015, the trial court granted defendant’s request for certificate of
probable cause.
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, 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
conduct an independent review of the record.
4
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
McKINSTER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after finding no arguable error in the record following an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his guilty plea.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find no error and affirm the judgment.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”