California Court of Appeal Jan 24, 2024 No. E081727Unpublished
Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Weitzeil 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E081727
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. RIF2204078, RIF2204402, RIF2204076, JEREMY SCOTT WEITZEIL, RIF2205555)
Defendant and Appellant. OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed and
Jason Armand, Judges. Affirmed.
Jo Pastore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition of nine years four months, defendant and
appellant Jeremy Scott Weitzeil pled guilty in five different cases to five felony offenses
and agreed to a waiver pursuant to People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254 (Cruz)
under which he was released from custody in return for promises not to commit other
crimes and to return for sentencing. Defendant did not return for sentencing as he was in
custody in San Bernardino County for committing a new crime. Due to violating the
On November 8, 2022, in case No. RIF2205555, a fourth felony complaint was
filed against defendant charging him with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459;
count 1) and possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466). The complaint also alleged
that defendant had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12,
subd. (c)).
3
On December 2, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled
guilty to five felony charges and admitted the prior strike conviction in all four cases plus
a fifth lead case.2 Specifically, in case No. RIF2205212, defendant pled guilty to felony
fraud (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted the prior strike conviction. In return,
defendant was promised a stipulated low term of two years doubled to four years due to
the prior strike. In case No. RIF2204078, defendant pled guilty to unlawfully taking or
driving a vehicle and admitted the same prior strike conviction. In return, defendant was
promised a stipulated middle term of one year four months to be served consecutive to
case No. RIF2205212. In case No. RIF2204076, defendant pled guilty to unlawfully
taking or driving a vehicle and admitted the same prior strike. In return, defendant was
promised a stipulated middle term of one year four months to be served consecutively. In
case No. RIF2204402, defendant pled guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle and admitted
the same prior strike. In exchange, defendant was promised a stipulated middle term of
one year four months to be served consecutively. Lastly, in case No. RIF2205555,
defendant pled guilty to second degree burglary and admitted the same prior strike. In
exchange, defendant was promised a stipulated middle term of one year four months to
be served consecutively. Defendant’s total stipulated sentence was nine years four
months. The parties also agreed that the remaining charges would be dismissed and that
defendant would enter a Cruz waiver allowing him to be released on his own
2 As defendant’s appellate counsel notes, the clerk’s transcript does not contain information pertaining to the fifth case, case No. RIF2205212. However, the reporter’s transcript and other documents in the clerk’s transcript adequately reflect the plea agreement.
4
recognizance with the understanding that if he did not return for sentencing on March 9,
2023, or incurred a new criminal case, the plea agreement would be void and he would,
instead, be sentenced to the middle term on the principal lead case, case No. RIF2205212,
to six years and that defendant would receive an aggregate sentence of 11 years 4 months.
Prior to pleading guilty and admitting to the prior strike conviction in all five
cases, defendant executed and signed felony plea forms. The trial court went over the
plea form and the plea agreement in each case with defendant at the December 2, 2022,
hearing. In response to the trial court’s query, defendant indicated that he understood the
plea agreement, that he had initialed and signed the plea forms, that he understood the
constitutional rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty, and that he did not need
more time to speak with his attorney. After defendant’s counsel joined in defendant’s
guilty pleas and admissions, the trial court established a factual basis for each case. After
directly examining defendant, the court found that defendant understood his plea
agreements and the consequences of his guilty pleas; that defendant had knowingly and
intelligently waived his constitutional rights; that defendant had freely and voluntarily
given his guilty pleas and admissions; and that there was a factual basis for his pleas.
The court thereafter ordered defendant to return to court on March 9, 2023, for sentencing
and explained the Cruz waiver to defendant. The court advised defendant that if he did
not return for sentencing on March 9, 2023, or “pick[ed] up a new case,” then he would
be sentenced to the middle term of six years on the principal case.
5
Defendant did not appear for sentencing on March 9, 2023, as he was in custody in
San Bernardino County on a new charge. The trial court revoked defendant’s own
recognizance release on all cases and a no-bail warrant was issued.
The sentencing hearing was held on May 22, 2023, with defendant present. The
prosecutor presented a certified copy of defendant’s conviction from San Bernardino
County to the court. The certified conviction showed that defendant committed a
burglary in San Bernardino County 10 days after he was released on the present cases.
The trial court found that defendant violated the terms of his Cruz waiver and sentenced
defendant to a total term of 11 years 4 months in state prison with 156 days’ credit for
time served. The court dismissed the remaining charges and granted defense counsel’s
request to stay or strike the fees and fines. Defendant was ordered to pay victim
restitution in all his cases. Defendant timely appealed in all four cases based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.3
III.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon
examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the procedural
background, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
(See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).)
3 The notice of appeal does not mention the principal case, case No. RIF RIF2205212.
6
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442;
People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see
People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgments in all cases are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MENETREZ J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable error in the trial court's imposition of an 11-year-4-month sentence following the defendant's violation of a Cruz waiver.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to the stipulated term following a violation of a Cruz waiver.
Whether there are any arguable issues on appeal following an independent review of the record under People v. Wende.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.”
“The trial court found that defendant violated the terms of his Cruz waiver and sentenced defendant to a total term of 11 years 4 months in state prison”