P. v. Hands CA1/4

Filed 5/15/13 P. v. Hands CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137650 v. RUBEN LAMAR HANDS, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. Nos. 218569) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Ruben Lamar Hands (appellant) appeals from his conviction and resulting sentence to one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211). Appellant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel’s declaration states that he notified appellant that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende instead was being requested. Appellant was also advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been filed by appellant personally. To assist this court in its review, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel points out as a possible issue whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

1

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF CASE A one-count felony complaint was filed by the San Francisco County District Attorney’s Office on November 22, 2011, charging appellant with second degree robbery (§ 211). Sentencing enhancements were also alleged, including that appellant’s prior criminal record made him ineligible for probation, that his prior criminal convictions included one strike within the meaning of this state’s Three Strikes law, one prior “serious” felony, within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and that he had served three separate, prior state prison terms, within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). On that same date, appellant requested to waive the right to have counsel appointed to represent him, and instead to represent himself. The request was granted by the trial court after finding, through observations and questioning, that appellant voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived his right to counsel, with a full understanding of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The incident leading to the filing of the criminal complaint occurred on August 26, 2010, in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood. At that time, appellant was caught by an undercover police officer conducting a “buy/bust” operation. Appellant took the officer’s money for the drugs he was told appellant was selling to him, only to find that there were no such drugs in the package handed to the officer. When the officer asked for his money back, appellant refused and threatened to physically beat the officer. Appellant then approached the officer with clenched fists, and the officer activated his distress/arrest signal. Other officers then arrived on scene and appellant was arrested. At the next hearing on November 29, 2011, the trial court appointed advisory counsel to assist appellant. Arraignment was then held, at which time appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge in count one and denied all of the special allegations. On March 15, 2012, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, filed a motion to discover certain personnel records pertaining to the three police officers involved in his arrest. A stipulation regarding this motion was then filed and signed both by appellant and legal counsel for the San Francisco Police Department on April 9, 2012. The court