People v. Vecchetti CA1/2

Filed 8/28/23 P. v. Vecchetti CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167672 v. JOSEPH ANTHONY VECCHETTI, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR2201296B) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joseph Anthony Vecchetti appeals from a judgment after he pleaded guilty to three drug-related offenses. Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he did not do so. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no meritorious issues. We thus affirm. BACKGROUND On May 3, 2022, the Humboldt County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant with four counts of possessing controlled

1

substances for sale: fentanyl (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351)1 (count 1); DMT (dimethyltryptamine) (§ 11378) (count 2); ketamine (§ 11379.2) (count 3); and methamphetamine (§ 11378) (count 4).2 On January 31, 2023, the parties informed the trial court that they had reached a plea agreement. Although defendant was presumptively not eligible for probation due to two prior felony convictions, the parties stipulated that unusual circumstances existed to support a grant of probation in this case. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.413.) Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 and newly added misdemeanor counts of simple possession of methamphetamine and DMT (§ 11377, subd. (a)) (counts 5 and 6, respectively), in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and a two-year term of probation subject to certain terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions included a term of 90 days in county jail and payment of various fines, fees, and assessments in amounts to be determined at sentencing. On February 23, the probation report was filed and the court held the sentencing hearing. Consistent with the plea agreement, the court granted defendant probation for a term of two years3, conditioned among other things a term of 90 days in jail. It also adopted the probation report’s