People v. Edwards CA5

Filed 4/21/22 P. v. Edwards 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F081352 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MF012087A) v.

RAUL EDWARDS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John S. Somers and David R. Zulfa, Judges.† Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Kari Mueller, Amanda D. Cary and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J. † Judge Somers sentenced appellant; Judge Zulfa ruled on appellant’s petition for resentencing.

Appointed counsel for defendant Raul Edwards 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 his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant responded, contending defense counsel was ineffective for intentionally concealing video evidence and advising him to accept a plea bargain. He claims a gross miscarriage of justice has occurred because the newly discovered evidence would have exonerated him. We strike the prior prison term enhancement and remand for resentencing. Finding no other arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm in all other respects. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2016, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with bringing a controlled substance into a correctional facility (Pen. Code, § 4573;1 count 1), attempting to deter an executive officer from performing his or her duties (§ 69; count 2), and misdemeanor attempting to destroy or conceal evidence (§§ 664, 135; count 3). The information further alleged defendant had suffered two prior “strike” felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) and had served one prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On July 29, 2016, defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 2 and admitted the special allegations in return for the striking of a prior strike conviction and an indicated sentence of 10 years four months, calculated as follows: on count 1, eight years (the upper term of four years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law), on count 2, 16 consecutive months (eight months, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law), plus a