People v. Bahena CA1/2

Filed 12/18/15 P. v. Bahena CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A145157 v. CRISTIAN ZARAGOZA BAHENA, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-653968) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Cristian Zaragoza Bahena pled guilty and now appeals from the judgment entered after his guilty plea. Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. Defendant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. After our independent review of the record, we find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, and we affirm. BACKGROUND A consolidated nine-count information was filed on November 4, 2014, charging defendant with three sets of offenses that allegedly took place on three separate dates in 2013 and 2014, as well as multiple gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)), and multiple enhancements for felonies committed while on-bail. On January 29, 2015, defendant changed his plea pursuant to a plea agreement with the district attorney’s office. He pled guilty to count 1, which charged that on July

1

26, 2014, he committed the felony of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)); count 9, which charged that on November 20, 2013, he committed the felony of unlawful possession of a firearm (to wit, a Glock pistol) (§ 29820, subd. (b)), and count 5, which charged that on June 8, 2014, he committed the misdemeanor of unlawfully possessing a dirk or dagger (§ 21310). He also admitted one gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) and one on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.1). Defendant entered into the plea agreement with the understanding that he faced a maximum state prison sentence of seven years and eight months, with the possibility that the court might grant probation. Defendant and his counsel signed a written Advisement of Rights, Waiver and Plea Form for Felonies, filed January 29, 2015.1 The trial court accepted the change of plea after finding that defendant had voluntarily and intelligently waived his constitutional rights; that his plea and admissions were freely, voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made; that he understood the nature of the charges and consequences of the pleas and admissions; and that there was a factual basis for the plea. Defense counsel stipulated that the preliminary hearing transcripts provided the factual basis for the guilty pleas. As part of the plea agreement, defendant also resolved two unrelated misdemeanor cases. Defendant was sentenced on March 17, 2015. At the sentencing hearing, defendant asked that the court suspend imposition of sentence and place him on probation with “gang terms and strict supervision.” The prosecution sought the maximum allowable state prison term under the plea agreement. After listening to the arguments of counsel and considering the probation officer’s report, the trial court gave a lengthy statement of reasons for denying probation and sentencing defendant to state prison. The trial court imposed an aggregate state prison sentence of six years, calculated as follows. For count 1, the low term of 16 months for