People v. Valenzuela CA4/2 ( 2013 )

Filed 12/31/13 P. v. Valenzuela 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E058555
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1208121)
EDWARD PATRICK VALENZUELA, OPINION
JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge.
Affirmed.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
On March 6, 2013, defendant and appellant Edward Patrick Valenzuela, Jr., pled
guilty to residential burglary under Penal Code1 section 459 and admitted personal use of
a shotgun under section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The plea agreement included a
stipulated sentence of 12 years in state prison and a dismissal of the balance of the
complaint, filed on December 5, 2012.
On March 8, 2013, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 12 years:
two years for the burglary conviction and 10 years for the gun-use enhancement.
Defendant received 111 days of presentence custody credits. The trial court imposed
restitution and parole revocation fines of $280 each, but suspended the parole revocation
fine.
On April 26, 2013, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
As a factual basis for the plea, defendant answered, “Yes,” in response to the trial
court’s question: “Did you go into a house . . . with the intent to either commit a theft or
with the intent to commit a felony?” Defendant also answered, “Yes,” when asked
whether he entered the house armed with a shotgun.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
ANALYSIS
After 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, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to
undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
3