P. v. Oropeza CA4/3

Filed 3/21/13 P. v. Oropeza CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G046898

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10CF1427)

OCTAVIO OROPEZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig E. Robison, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Octavio Oropeza on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Oropeza was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. Counsel did not provide this court with any specific information to assist us with our independent review pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. We have reviewed the information provided by counsel and have independently examined the record. We found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm the judgment. FACTS An information charged Oropeza with three counts of second degree robbery in violation of Penal Code1 sections 211 and 212.5, subdivision (c) (counts 1, 2, and 3), and one count of possession of ammunition by a minor in violation of section 12101, subdivisions (b)(1), and (c)(1)(C).2 As to counts 2 and 3, the information alleged Oropeza personally inflicted great bodily harm pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (a). In exchange for a three-year prison sentence and the dismissal of all other counts and the enhancement, Oropeza pled guilty to one count of robbery in violation of section 211. Before accepting the plea, the trial court advised Oropeza of his constitutional rights. The court accepted Oropeza’s plea and found Oropeza had entered a voluntary, intelligent, knowing, and express waiver of his constitutional rights. The court also found there was a factual basis for the plea. Defense counsel joined in the plea