California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 2016 No. E064317Unpublished
Filed 3/17/16 P. v. Rocha 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E064317
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1300892)
CERAFIN RODRIGUEZ ROCHA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Katrina West,
Judge. Affirmed.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Cerafin Rodriguez Rocha
pled no contest to attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a), count 1), and
assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 2), and he admitted a firearm
enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b). A trial court sentenced him to a
total of 20 years in state prison, pursuant to the plea agreement.
Defendant filed a letter in propria persona, which was treated by the court clerk as
a notice of appeal. Appellate counsel subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal,
based on the sentence or other matters not affecting the validity of the plea. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2014, an information was filed charging defendant with
attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a), count 1), and assault with a firearm (§ 245,
subd. (a)(2), count 2). The information also alleged with respect to both counts that
defendant committed the crimes to benefit a criminal street gang (§ 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)(A)), and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7,
subd. (a)). As to count 1, firearm enhancements were alleged pursuant to section
12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). As to count 2, firearm enhancements were
alleged pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivisions (a) and (d). The information further
alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667,
subds. (b)-(i)), and that he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant pled not guilty to all charges.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
2
On February 3, 2015, defendant, who was represented by counsel, entered a plea
agreement and withdrew his plea of not guilty. Before accepting the plea, the court
questioned him. The court asked if defendant had adequate time to discuss his case with
his attorney and to discuss all of his rights, all penalties and punishments, and the nature
of the charges. Defendant replied that he had. The court asked if he understood all of his
rights, the penalties and punishment, and the nature of the charges. Defendant replied
that he did. Finally, the court asked defense counsel if he agreed that he had adequate
time to discuss everything with defendant, and defense counsel said that he had.
Defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 2 and admitted the firearm enhancement
pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b). Counsel stipulated that there was a factual
basis for the plea. The court then found that the plea and waiver of constitutional rights
were knowingly and intelligently made, and it set a sentencing hearing.
Prior to sentencing, defendant told the court he wanted to withdraw his plea
because his retained attorney did not adequately advise him of the nature of his plea
agreement. The court appointed a public defender to consider filing a motion to
withdraw the plea. The public defender determined there was no basis to withdraw the
plea. At a sentencing hearing on August 4, 2015, defendant claimed he did not spend any
time with the public defender, and that he still wanted to withdraw his plea. Thus, the
court reappointed the public defender’s office for consideration of the matter again.
3
At a hearing on August 7, 2015, the public defender again found no basis to
withdraw the plea. Defendant again asked the court to allow him to withdraw his plea.
The court denied the request.
On August 18, 2015, defendant requested a continuance so that he could hire an
attorney to file a motion to withdraw his plea. The court denied the request. The court
announced it would proceed with sentencing, and defendant asked if he could represent
himself. The court denied that request, as well. It then sentenced him to a total of 20
years in state prison, pursuant to the plea agreement. The court dismissed the remaining
allegations.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, 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 and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in summarily
denying defendant’s request to represent himself; and (2) whether defendant’s plea was
constitutionally valid. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the
entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
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.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
MILLER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's request to represent himself.
Whether the defendant's plea was constitutionally valid.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“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.”