California Court of Appeal Oct 16, 2015 No. E063175Unpublished
Filed 10/16/15 P. v. Chavez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E063175
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1400446)
JOEL CHAVEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Joel Chavez, in pro. per.; and Jean Matulis, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Joel Chavez was charged by felony complaint with one
count of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code,1 § 459, count 1.) The complaint also alleged
that defendant had one prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667,
subds. (b)-(i)), had served one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and had one prior
serious felony conviction (§667, subd. (a)(1)). On April 24, 2014, the People moved to
agreement, under which he pled no contest to a charge of grand theft and agreed to a
4
sentence of six years in state prison. (§ 487.) In exchange, the People agreed to dismiss
the charge of first degree burglary. (§ 459.) Defendant acknowledged his understanding
that a no contest plea would be treated the same as a guilty plea, for all purposes.
(§ 1016.) Thus, pursuant to the plea, he conceded that the prosecution had sufficient
evidence to support his conviction of grand theft. (Turner, at p. 125.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18, finding that the defendant waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his conviction by entering a no contest plea.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18.
Whether the defendant's no contest plea waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The judgment is affirmed.”
“[A] guilty plea constitutes an admission of every element of the offense charged and constitutes a conclusive admission of guilt.”
“By pleading guilty a defendant ‘[waives] any right to question how evidence had been obtained just as fully and effectively as he [waives] any right to have his conviction reviewed on the merits.’”