People v. Mata CA5

Filed 10/21/20 P. v. Mata 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079428 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F18904251) v.

SAVANAH MATA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David Andrew Gottlieb, Judge. Carla J. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appointed counsel for defendant Savanah Mata asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. BACKGROUND On June 26, 2018, the People filed a felony complaint, charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife (Pen. Code, §245 subd. (a)(1);1 (count 1)), and making criminal threats (§ 422; count 2), both against the same victim.2 On June 27, 2018, defendant pled not guilty to both counts and was placed on pretrial release under the supervision of the probation department. She later was remanded to custody after she failed to appear at two hearings. On November 28, 2018, defendant withdrew her not guilty pleas and entered a plea of no contest to count 2. The court advised defendant that count 2 involved a strike offense, which meant it was a serious offense that could result in her being sentenced to state prison if she violated the terms of her release. The court additionally advised defendant that the strike could be used to “greatly enhance” her sentence for any future felonies. Defendant stated that she understood. The court confirmed that defendant wished to enter a plea under the conditions contained in a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form she had signed. The court also confirmed that defendant had sufficient time to discuss the matter with her attorney, and her attorney confirmed that defendant was advised that the offense constituted a strike, as well as “all the collateral consequences associated with that.” The court informed defendant she could be