People v. Irwin CA5 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/15/16 P. v. Irwin CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,
    F070793
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Super. Ct. No. BF156055A)
    v.
    GREGORY IRWIN,                                                                           OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M.
    Humphrey, Judge.
    James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
    General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael A. Canzoneri,
    Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    -ooOoo-
    *        Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
    Gregory Irwin pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale and
    admitted two enhancements in exchange for an agreed upon sentence and dismissal of
    other charges. He filed a notice of appeal, but neither the notice nor appellate counsel
    identified any arguable issues in the case. Our review of the record did not identify any
    arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
    The amended information charged Irwin with transportation of methamphetamine
    (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), and possession of methamphetamine for the
    purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Each charge also alleged Irwin had
    suffered a prior conviction that constituted a strike within the meaning of Penal Code
    sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (e), and
    had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5,
    subdivision (b).
    Irwin entered into a plea agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty (or no
    contest) to the possession for sale count, and admit both enhancements to that count. In
    exchange, Irwin would be sentenced to the minimum term of 16 months, doubled because
    of the strike prior, plus one year for the prison prior for a total term of 44 months in jail.
    In addition, the other charge and enhancements would be dismissed.
    Irwin completed a Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver and Plea Form which
    was consistent with this agreement. In this form Irwin was informed of the consequences
    of his plea, and waived his constitutional right to a jury trial. Irwin confirmed to the trial
    court that he understood his rights and was giving them up.
    Irwin was sentenced to the agreed upon term of imprisonment.
    2.
    DISCUSSION
    Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    ,
    asserting he could not identify any arguable issues in this case.1 Irwin filed the notice of
    appeal without stating any grounds for relief. Nor did he seek a certificate of probable
    cause. After appellate counsel filed his Wende brief, by letter dated June 19, 2015, we
    invited Irwin to inform this court of any issues he wished addressed. Irwin did not
    respond to our letter.
    After a thorough review of the record, we agree with appellate counsel there are
    no arguable issues in this case. Irwin entered a plea agreement, he was sentenced to the
    agreed upon term, and the remainder of the terms were complied with by both parties.
    He was fully advised of the consequences of his plea, and waived his constitutional
    rights. There is nothing in this record to suggest any error occurred.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    1      Appellate counsel initially filed a brief asserting the minute order reflected fines
    not imposed by the trial court at the oral pronouncement of judgment. Respondent filed a
    brief pointing out the fines were imposed at the sentencing hearing. Recognizing his
    mistake, appellate counsel moved to have the opening brief he filed struck, and then filed
    the Wende brief.
    3.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F070793

Filed Date: 6/15/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021