California Court of Appeal Jul 19, 2016 No. E064931Unpublished
Filed 7/19/16 P. v. Varela 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E064931
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1315142)
JOSE LUIS DIAZ VARELA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas Kelly, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Jose Luis Diaz
Varela pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1);
1
child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a); count 2); driving with a suspended
license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); count 3); and driving without auto insurance
(Veh. Code, § 16020, subd. (a); count 4). In return, defendant was sentenced to a total
endangerment likely to produce great bodily harm and death (Pen. Code, § 273a,
subd. (a); count 2); driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a);
count 3); and driving without auto insurance (Veh. Code, § 16020, subd. (a); count 4). A
petition to revoke defendant’s probation in another matter was also filed.
On July 13, 2015, defendant entered into a negotiated plea. He pleaded guilty to
all the charges in exchange for a stipulated term of 15 years to life, the People’s promise
they would not oppose a grant of parole upon defendant’s first eligibility provided
defendant does not violate any law while in custody, and dismissal of any pending
probation violation cases. After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that
defendant understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea; that the
3
plea was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently; and that there was a
factual basis for the plea.
On November 10, 2015, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea
agreement and awarded 707 days presentence credit for time served.
On December 3, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal and request for certificate
of probable cause, challenging the validity of the plea claiming he was coerced into
taking the plea deal and his counsel was ineffective. On December 4, 2015, the trial
court denied defendant’s request for certificate of probable cause, noting the plea was
carefully taken.
On December 11, 2015, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, 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, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to
conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
4
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ 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 finding no arguable errors upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether there are any arguable issues on appeal following a negotiated plea agreement.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find no error and affirm.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”