California Court of Appeal Sep 28, 2016 No. D069480Unpublished
Filed 9/28/16 P. v. Sekerke CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D069480
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN327367)
KEITH SEKERKE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim von
Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Keith Sekerke was sentenced to prison for a stipulated term of six years after he
pleaded guilty to vehicle theft and admitted allegations he had certain prior convictions.
He filed a notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause to challenge the
validity of his guilty plea. (Pen. Code, §§ 1237, subd. (a), 1237.5.) We find no error and
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The People filed a felony complaint against Sekerke on January 8, 2014. After a
preliminary hearing, multiple amendments, and consolidation of cases, the People filed a
fourth amended information on March 16, 2015, charging Sekerke with two counts of
vehicle theft with a prior conviction of the same offense (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a);
Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)), two counts of petty theft with a prior qualifying conviction
(Pen. Code, §§ 484, 666), one count of unlawful use of personal identifying information
of another (id., § 530.5, subd. (a)), one count of receiving stolen property (id., § 496d),
one count of burglary (id., §459), and one count of shoplifting (id., § 459.5). The People
also alleged Sekerke had multiple prior convictions that made him ineligible for
probation (id., § 1203, subd. (e)(4)), served three prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd.
(b)), and had one prior conviction that qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law
(id., § 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
Before the filing of the fourth amended information, there were several hearings in
the trial court, including a competency hearing that required a suspension of proceedings
(Pen. Code, § 1368), and multiple continuances of the trial date. On February 27, 2015,
Sekerke moved to dismiss the case on the ground a continuance of the November 6, 2014
trial date over his objection violated his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy
trial. The trial court denied the motion on March 16, 2015, the same date the fourth
amended information was filed.
2
Three days later, Sekerke pleaded guilty to one count of vehicle theft and admitted
the allegations he had a prior conviction for the same offense and a prior strike
conviction. The People agreed to dismiss the balance of the charges and allegations, and
the parties stipulated to a six-year prison term.
After he pleaded guilty, Sekerke asked the trial court to relieve his appointed
counsel. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) The court held a
hearing and denied Sekerke's request. Sekerke next filed a motion to withdraw the guilty
plea (Pen. Code, § 1018) and to dismiss all charges, again complaining the undue delay in
prosecution of the case violated his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial.
At a combined hearing on the motion and sentencing, the trial court denied the motion,
imposed the stipulated six-year prison sentence, and ordered Sekerke to pay victim
restitution. The court subsequently denied Sekerke's ex parte request to hold a hearing on
the restitution award.
DISCUSSION
Sekerke's appellate counsel has filed a brief, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), setting
forth a statement of the case, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking
this court independently to review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders, counsel
identified the following issues to assist the court in its search for error:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in denying Sekerke's motion to dismiss the case
due to a violation of his right to speedy trial;
3
(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Sekerke's motion to
withdraw his guilty plea;
(3) Whether the trial court erred in denying Sekerke's post-plea Marsden motion;
and
(4) Whether the trial court erred by not granting Sekerke's post-sentencing request
for a victim restitution hearing.
In the opening brief, counsel also briefly discussed the general legal principles applicable
to those issues, including legal authorities showing they had no merit.
After receiving the opening brief from appellate counsel, we informed Sekerke he
could file a supplemental brief. He filed two separate letter briefs but advanced the same
contentions in both. Sekerke claimed his right to a speedy trial was violated; a pill bottle
with his name on it allegedly found in the stolen vehicle was not legally collected and
was erroneously introduced as evidence at the preliminary hearing; and the trial court
erred by permitting the prosecutor to use evidence of prior convictions against him even
though he never took the stand. Sekerke cited no legal authority in support of any of his
contentions.
We have reviewed the entire record consistent with the requirements of Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; considered the issues listed by
appellate counsel as well as those raised by Sekerke; and found no reasonably arguable
grounds to invalidate the guilty plea or otherwise to reverse the judgment. In brief
response to the issues raised by Sekerke, we note his claim of a violation of his right to a
speedy trial did not survive his guilty plea (People v. Egbert (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 503,
4
513; People v. Hernandez (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357), and the plea waived any
right to raise questions regarding the sufficiency or the admissibility of the evidence
against him (People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125). We further note
Sekerke has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction, finding no reasonably arguable grounds to invalidate the defendant's guilty plea or otherwise reverse the judgment after an independent review of the record.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the post-plea Marsden motion.
Whether the trial court erred by not granting the post-sentencing request for a victim restitution hearing.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have reviewed the entire record consistent with the requirements of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738; considered the issues listed by appellate counsel as well as those raised by Sekerke; and found no reasonably arguable grounds to invalidate the guilty plea or otherwise to reverse the judgment.”