People v. Urena CA6

Filed 3/25/16 P. v. Urena CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H042631 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1084548)

v.

DAVID ANDREW URENA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, David Andrew Urena (defendant) pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a))1 (count 1) and two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) (counts 2 & 3). He admitted a gang enhancement allegation as to each count. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction, challenging the validity of his pleas. The trial court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause based on his claim that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to withdraw his pleas, “submitted on grounds of Innocence.” (See § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1).) Defendant’s appointed counsel filed an appellate opening brief that containes a statement of the facts but raises no issues. Counsel requests that this court independently review the record on appeal under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders). Counsel declares that he advised defendant, in a writing sent to his last known address, that a “Wende/Anders 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

brief” would be filed in this case and that “he may personally file a supplemental brief in this case raising any issues which he wishes to call to the Court’s attention.” This court sent a letter, dated November 30, 2015, to defendant informing him that his appointed appellate counsel had filed an opening brief that did not raise any specific issues and that this court is required to examine the entire appellate record to determine whether there is any arguable issue. The letter advised defendant of his right to submit any argument that he wished to make for himself within 30 days after the date of the letter. In response to this court’s letter, defendant requested an extension of time to file a supplemental brief, which this court granted. The time has now elapsed, and this court has not received a response from defendant. We provide a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124 (Kelly).) I Facts The following facts were taken from the probation report. On June 25, 2010, at approximately 5:57 a.m., San Jose Police received a call that two persons had been shot and were lying in a driveway. Police officers responding to the scene found C.L. and I.C., who both had been shot.2 C.L. had been shot four times, in the arm, neck (severing the spinal column), head, and back. I.C. had been shot once in the abdomen. C.L. was pronounced dead at Valley Medical Center. I.C. underwent emergency surgery, and he required a colostomy bag.