IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo)
January 14, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JEREMY JAMISON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. Nos. 09-3002, 09-5105)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson, Acting P.J.
P. v. Jamison
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 case No. 09-3002, a complaint filed June 26, 2009, charged defendant Jeremy Jamison with two counts of first degree burglary (counts 1 & 2; Pen. Code, § 459)*fn1 and one count of grand theft of a firearm (count 3; §§ 487, subd. (d), 489, subd. (a)). In case No. 09-5105, a complaint filed November 3, 2009, charged defendant with unauthorized use of an access card (count 1; §§ 484g, subd. (b), 487, subd. (a)), eight counts of second degree burglary (counts 2-9; § 459), and an on-bail allegation (§ 12202.1, subd. (b)).
Defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 2 in case No. 09-3002 and counts 2 and 3 in case No. 09-5105, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. It was agreed that he would be sentenced to an aggregate term of three years four months, consisting of two years (the lower term) on one count of first degree burglary in case No. 09-3002, with a two-year sentence on the second count to run concurrent, plus consecutive eight-month sentences on each count in case No. 09-5105.
The factual basis for the plea, as stipulated to by the parties, was as follows:
In case No. 09-3002, on June 24, 2009, Davis police responded to a report that defendant was seen entering a house and then leaving it carrying items later determined by residents of the house to be stolen. While defendant was detained on that report, another call came in from the Yolo County Sheriff's Department, reporting a house break-in shortly before defendant was stopped. Defendant's fingerprints were found at the point of entry, and he admitted possessing property from that residence. Both houses were inhabited at the time of defendant's entry. Defendant was not invited into either house and did not have permission to possess any property from those houses.
In case No. 09-5105, defendant was stopped by UC Davis police in downtown Davis. A search of his person turned up a stolen credit card, which defendant had recently used at a Target store in Woodland and at the Davis ShortStop.
Thereafter, defendant moved to withdraw his plea and received new counsel to represent him. Following a hearing at which his appointed conflict counsel informed the trial court that he had discovered no grounds to withdraw the plea, and defendant spoke on his own behalf, the court denied defendant's motion.
The trial court subsequently imposed the agreed-upon sentence of three years four months. The court also imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); a suspended $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.45); a $500 victim restitution award (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), with an amount to be determined later to the Victim Restitution Fund; and a court construction fee of $120 (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court awarded defendant 112 days of presentence custody credit in case No. 09-3002 (56 days actual credit and 56 days conduct credit) and 220 days of presentence custody credit in case No. 09-5105 (110 days actual credit and 110 days custody credit).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental letter brief asserting his factual innocence on all counts and requesting that this court vacate his prison term and send him to a state hospital under section 1368. However, defendant's plea forfeits his claim of factual innocence, and this court has no authority to take the action defendant requests pursuant to section 1368 or any other statute.
Having undertaken an examination of the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL ,J. ROBIE, J.