People v. Razo CA3

Filed 5/24/24 P. v. Razo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099654

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF23-00966- 02) v.

JOSE MANUEL RAZO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Manuel Razo asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has disclosed that, although defendant’s plea agreement provided for dismissal of charges other than those to which he pleaded no contest, the trial court failed to orally dismiss those charges following defendant’s plea and sentencing. We will amend the judgment to address this

1

error. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment as modified.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In April 2023, the People charged defendant with second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, count II) (unless otherwise stated, statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code); grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a), count III); and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), count IV). We note that, as to Count I, the charge of making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a), count I) was alleged solely against defendant’s codefendant, Christopher Cody Donovan. The complaint alleged all other counts jointly against defendant and Donovan.

On August 9, 2023, defendant moved to relieve his then counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. After holding a hearing, the court denied the motion. On August 10, 2023, defendant resolved his case by pleading no contest to burglary and grand theft, counts II and III. As the factual basis for the plea, the People stated that, on or about April 19, 2023, the victims went to their residence that had a shop on the property, which had been burglarized earlier in the day, in order to secure the property from further break-ins. When they arrived, they saw a vehicle driven by defendant leaving the property and gave chase. At some point the vehicle stopped, and defendant’s passenger, Donovan, got out and ran away. In defendant’s vehicle were an air compressor, a chop saw, and a chain saw that had been stolen from the property. The value of the stolen items exceeded $950. There were numerous other tools in the vehicle. A safe inside the shop had been moved. Footprints on the safe made subsequent to the earlier burglary matched defendant’s shoes, showing that defendant was inside the shop and likely trying to steal the safe.