P. v. Eckes CA3

Filed 5/10/13 P. v. Eckes CA3 Received for posting 5/15/13 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C070957

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF101608)

v.

DANIEL AARON ECKES,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the 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, 124.)

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a) -- count 1),1 attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 211 -- count 2), and conspiracy to commit robbery (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 211 -- count 3). Attached to each count were allegations of firearm use and infliction of great bodily injury. Defendant entered into the following plea bargain: In exchange for a maximum prison term of 22 years in state prison and the dismissal of counts 1 and 2, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and admitted allegations of personal discharge of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and personal infliction of great bodily injury in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).2 At sentencing, the court denied defendant’s request for probation, concluding that his was not an unusual case such that justice would be served by a grant of probation. The court then imposed the 22-year term, consisting of “the middle base term of two years” for the conspiracy plus 20 years for the firearm use. The court determined defendant was entitled to 824 days of presentence custody credit (717 actual days’ credit, plus 107 conduct days’ credit pursuant to § 2933.1). The court imposed an agreed-upon $1,275 in victim restitution and restitution fines of $240 in accordance with sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45. FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PLEA On March 26, 2010, defendant and his codefendants planned to rob the owner of the motel in which they were staying. When the owner drove to his residence, they followed him. Armed with a handgun, defendant got out of the vehicle, ran up to the