People v. Segovia CA4/2 ( 2015 )

Filed 3/5/15 P. v. Segovia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E061468
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1400763)
SALVADOR SIERRA SEGOVIA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Salvador Sierra Segovia was charged by information with
first degree burglary. (Pen. Code,1 § 459, count 1.) It was alleged that another person,
other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the
burglary. (§ 667.5, subd. (c).) Defendant’s case was tried by a jury, but a court declared
a mistrial after finding the jury deadlocked. After a brief recess, defendant entered a plea
agreement and pled guilty to count 1. He also admitted the allegation that there was a
person present in the residence during the burglary. The parties stipulated that the
evidence presented at the trial provided a factual basis for the plea. Defendant was
sentenced immediately. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced him
to four years in state prison and awarded him 111 days of presentence custody credits.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging the validity of the plea, and
requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. Defendant filed a
second notice of appeal, based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.
We affirm.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged with and admitted that, on or about February 18, 2014, he
committed one count of first degree burglary, with a person, other than an accomplice,
present in the residence. (§ 459.)
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 his plea agreement was barred
by the doctrine of double jeopardy because of the mistrial; (2) whether he was advised of
his constitutional rights and the consequences of pleading guilty, and if he waived his
rights before pleading guilty; and (3) whether he was sentenced in accordance with the
plea agreement. 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.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
4