IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba)
July 5, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
CANDELARIO JAIME MATTA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (Super. Ct. No. CRF10240)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch, J.
P. v. Matta
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 May 11, 2010, at around 8:00 p.m., defendant Candelario Jaime Matta confronted his former girlfriend L.E. He fired two shots at her, hitting her left thigh. L.E. was holding their son at the time. Defendant admitted to his probation officer that he was an active member of the Norteno street gang.
Defendant pled guilty to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a))*fn1 and participating in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), and admitted an enhancement for personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed a stipulated prison term of 14 years and 8 months, ordered various fines and fees, and awarded 254 days' presentence credit (consisting of 221 custody days and 33 conduct days).
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied (§ 1237.5).
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. (Wende, supra, 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 timely filed a supplemental brief.
Defendant asserts there is insufficient evidence to support a street gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), because the assault with a firearm offense was not committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. This assertion has no merit.
Defendant was not charged with a gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). Defendant pled guilty to the crime of participating in a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (a). In any event, defendant's guilty plea to the gang offense waives his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting that conviction. (People v. LaJocies (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 947, 956-957.) And to the extent that his claim attacks the validity of his plea, his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause forfeits the issue for appellate review. (Ibid.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAYE, P. J. BUTZ, J.