People v. Bishop CA5

Filed 9/7/21 P. v. Bishop 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081296 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. F19904586) v.

GARY ALAN BISHOP, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolfo M. Corona, Judge. Joseph M. Ahart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Gary Alan Bishop entered into a negotiated disposition to felony charges and was sentenced to four years. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 12, 2019, a felony complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County charging defendant with count 1, unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle with intent to deprive the owner of possession, a U-Haul (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and count 2, receiving a stolen motor vehicle, a U-Haul (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)),1 with a prior conviction allegation for receiving a stolen motor vehicle (§ 666.5, subd. (a)), and three prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On July 26, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to a felony violation of count 1, admitted the value of the property exceeded $950, and pleaded no contest to the prior conviction allegation under section 666.5, for an indicated lid of four years, with three years in custody and one year of mandatory supervision, and dismissal of the other charges. The court advised defendant of his constitutional and statutory rights, defendant said he understood and waived his rights, and said no one made any promises or threats to get him to enter the plea, he did not have any physical or mental health issues that would prevent him from clearly thinking about his decision to enter the plea, and he did not have any questions. The court found defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and entered his plea.