IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
April 12, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
CHARLES JAVIER GUZMAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM031592)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease, Acting P. J.
P. v. Guzman
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On January 27, 2010, in case No. CM031592, defendant Charles Javier Guzman pleaded no contest to second degree burglary and to receiving stolen property, and he admitted a prior serious felony conviction for attempted first degree burglary, a strike offense (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(18) & (39)), in exchange for a stipulated sentence of five years four months (two years eight months doubled because of the strike) and the dismissal of other charges.*fn1
On April 7, 2010, the court imposed the stipulated sentence and credited defendant with 211 days for actual time served plus 104 days for conduct credits.*fn2 The court imposed the following fines and fees: Restitution fines of $200 in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45; restitution of $540 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)) to Cassandra L., and reserved jurisdiction to order restitution to three other victims; $10 theft fine payable to the Chico Police Department (Pen. Code, § 1202.51); $2 court surcharge (Pen. Code, § 1465.7, subd. (a)); $5 state court facilities construction fund (Gov. Code, § 70372); $10 penalty assessment (Pen. Code, § 1464); $7 county penalty assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000); $1 DNA identification fund (Gov. Code, § 76104.6); $1 DNA identification fund fee (Gov. Code, § 76104.7); $60 security charge (Pen. Code , § 1468.8); and a $60 conviction fee for two convictions (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Factual Basis for the Plea*fn3
The Chico Police Department received a call of a male subject fleeing and a vehicle car alarm sounding. The male was carrying a woman's purse and sped off in a described vehicle. An officer observed a matching vehicle in the area and stopped it. He detained defendant who matched the given description of the male. A consensual search disclosed a wallet belonging to a female and several items of stolen property from various victims. Witnesses were transported to where defendant was being detained and identified him as the person they had seen fleeing the scene of a burglarized vehicle. After advisement of his Miranda rights, defendant admitted breaking into the vehicle and stealing the victim's purse from the front seat.
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 has filed what he terms a supplemental brief. This brief contains neither argument nor citations to the appellate record, but consists solely of defendant's conclusory claims of dissatisfaction with the deputy public defender, who represented defendant prior to defendant's entering a not guilty plea, and with his substitute retained counsel who represented defendant through the remainder of the court proceedings. Typical of defendant's claims are that he "was unfairly represented/misrepresented by [his] public defender," that "upon the public defender relieving himself" the public defender "informed [defendant] with incorrect guidance and unjust decisions." As to retained counsel, she was "not given the substantial opportunities for representation." Defendant believes that he was "subject to bias" because of his record and he was "mistreated and judged poorly." Defendant requests that we "please look into this."
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and are unable to find any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant or any evidence supporting the claims defendant asserts in his supplemental brief.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J. MAURO, J.