People v. Salcedo CA3

Filed 7/16/21 P. v. Salcedo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092123

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE-2019-0013073) v.

ENRIQUE ARELLANO SALCEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Enrique Arellano Salcedo filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we will modify the judgment to correct a sentencing error and direct corrections to the abstract of judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A police officer attempted to pull defendant over for a traffic stop. Defendant fled, driving through stop signs and exceeding the speed limit. He discarded a bag

1

containing methamphetamine during his attempted escape. The prosecution charged defendant with fleeing a peace officer with wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2), transportation and/or sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 3), and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).1 The prosecution also alleged a prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) for a 2016 conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2 in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. During the plea colloquy, the court advised defendant of his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers, all of which defendant waived. Defendant agreed he had adequate time to discuss the terms of the plea agreement with defense counsel and acknowledged the consequences of the plea. After explaining the potential sentence and parole conditions, the court again confirmed with defendant that he did not want to withdraw his plea. At the next hearing, defense counsel stated that defendant would like to withdraw his plea. The court appointed conflict counsel to represent defendant for the withdrawal of plea motion. Conflict counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea, arguing the relationship between defendant and his former counsel had broken down such that defendant “was not in a position to make informed and complete decisions about his case.” The prosecution filed an opposition brief attaching defendant’s plea colloquy and argued defendant adequately understood the consequences of the plea.