People v. Carrillo CA5

Filed 4/8/16 P. v. Carrillo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F070784 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F14908761) v.

ANTONIO GODINA CARRILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge. Gabriel C. Vivas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

Appellant Antonio Godina Carrillo appeals from his nolo contendere plea to one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine with a prior prison term enhancement (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11370.2, subd. (c)). Appellant contends the trial court failed to determine that an adequate factual basis supported his plea. Because appellant did not submit a written statement showing reasonable grounds for this appeal or obtain a certificate of probable cause, we dismiss this appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 18, 2014, appellant was charged with transport for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)/count 1) and possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378/count 2). The complaint included an alleged enhancement for a prior Health and Safety Code violation (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)) and four allegations of enhancements for prior convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). On October 8, 2014, appellant entered into a plea agreement with respect to count 2. As part of that agreement, appellant would admit the enhancement for the prior Health and Safety Code violation and one prior conviction. In exchange, the prison prior would be struck for sentencing purposes. Appellant was questioned on the agreement, pled guilty, and admitted the enhancements. During the plea colloquy, the trial court asked: “Counsel, if I were to read the police reports in this case, would I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis for the plea?” Defense counsel responded with “Yes.” The People agreed, noting appellant was pleading pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. Based on these representations, the trial court found “there is a sufficient factual basis for the plea.” Appellant was subsequently sentenced in line with the plea agreement. This appeal timely followed. However, there is no record that appellant complied with Penal Code section 1237.5 prior to filing this appeal.