California Court of Appeal Mar 6, 2023 No. E079508Unpublished
Filed 3/6/23 P. v. Ratliff CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E079508
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2103962)
JAMES LEON RATLIFF, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge.
Affirmed.
Stephen M. Vasil, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant James Leon Ratliff was charged by amended felony
complaint with various sex offenses. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to all
counts as charged in exchange for a sentence of 13 years four months, plus 15 years to
life. The court found a factual basis for the plea and sentenced him to the agreed-upon
term, with credit for time served of 194 days of presentence custody credits and 29 days
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, based on the sentence or other matters
occurring after the plea. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2021, defendant was charged by felony amended complaint with
engaging in sexual acts with a person 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code,2 § 288.7, subd.
(b), count 1), committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under the age of 14 by
use of force (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), count 2), committing a lewd and lascivious act on a
child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a), count 3), and causing or permitting a child to
suffer physical pain and mental suffering (§ 273a, subd. (a), count 4). The complaint also
1 In adding the days of credit for actual time and conduct credit, the trial court erred and found that the total was 233 days. However, the minute order and abstract of judgment correctly list the credit total as 223 days.
2 All further statutory references will be the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2
alleged that defendant committed a qualifying sex offense against more than one victim.
(§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4).)
On December 10, 2021, defendant pled not guilty to all charges.
On March 20, 2022, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea
agreement. Before accepting the plea, the court asked him if he had a chance to go over
the plea form with his attorney, and he confirmed that he did. The plea form contained a
waiver of defendant’s right to appeal. The court asked if he understood everything on it,
and defendant confirmed that he did. Defendant said he had no questions for the court
about anything on the plea form. He also confirmed that he initialed and signed the plea
form and that he understood he was pleading guilty to all four counts. The court went
over the sentence he would receive under the plea agreement, and defendant confirmed
he understood and did not have any questions about anything they discussed. The court
read the charges in counts 1 through 4, and defendant orally entered a plea of guilty to all
counts; defense counsel joined, and the court accepted. The court then asked defendant if
he understood all the conduct it just read to him and if it was true that it happened.
Defendant confirmed, and the court found a factual basis for the plea, based on
defendant’s admission. The court found that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, understood the charges and consequences of
his plea, and that he freely and voluntarily pled guilty. The court ordered the plea form to
be filed.
3
On June 1, 2022, the court sentenced defendant, pursuant to the agreement, to 15
years to life on count 1, the upper term of 10 years on count 2, two years on count 3 (one-
third the midterm), and one year four months on count 4 (one third the midterm), for a
total determinate term of 13 years four months, and an indeterminate term of 15 years to
life. The court awarded 194 days of custody credits and 29 days of conduct credit.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant executed a valid
waiver of his appellate rights; (2) whether he needed to obtain a certificate of probable
cause to raise an appellate challenge to his negotiated sentence; (3) whether the court
adequately established a factual basis for the guilty plea; and (4) whether defendant
knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights. Counsel has also requested
this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
MENETREZ J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues.
Issues
Whether defendant executed a valid waiver of his appellate rights.
Whether he needed to obtain a certificate of probable cause to raise an appellate challenge to his negotiated sentence.
Whether the court adequately established a factual basis for the guilty plea.
Whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.”