People v. Perez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN309800
- Trial judge
- K. Michael Kirkman
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Gilbert Nares (author), McINTYRE, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court accepted Perez's guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a deadly weapon enhancement, sentencing him to a total of 12 years in state prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende found no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea and imposition of sentence“A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues raised by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court conducted an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues, thereby affirming the judgment without addressing the specific merits of the plea or sentencing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must review the record for error and file a brief identifying any arguable issues, or explain why none exist.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel may file a brief pointing to potentially arguable issues in the record to assist the court in its independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Anders framework for reviewing a record where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues. It relies on the correct authorities to justify the independent review and affirmance.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Perez's guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter with a personal-use-of-deadly-weapon enhancement and imposed the stipulated 12-year prison term with credits, fines, and fees. On a Wende appeal in which appointed counsel raised no arguable issues and Perez filed no supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no reasonably arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of the guilty plea after advisement of constitutional rights and consequences (including immigration consequences) and finding of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver“The court accepted the plea, finding Perez voluntarily and intelligently waived his constitutional rights, and he understood the consequences of his plea.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that Perez, assisted by counsel and a Spanish interpreter, initialed and signed a plea form, was orally advised of his rights and consequences, admitted a factual basis, and waived his rights; the Wende/Anders independent review found nothing arguable. Nothing in the described record suggests a defect, and the court applied the proper Wende framework, though the opinion does not detail the specific advisements given. |
Imposition of sentence: stipulated 11-year term plus one-year enhancement, 409 days of custody credit, $3,360 restitution fine, suspended parole revocation fine, court operations and conviction assessments, and criminal justice administration fee“did the court grant Perez the proper time credits and properly impose the fines and penalties?” | unclear | correct | agree with court The 12-year total matches the stipulated plea bargain (upper term for section 192(a) plus one year under section 12022(b)(1)), and the $3,360 restitution fine corresponds to the statutory formula and falls within the lawful range; the mandatory assessments and matching suspended fine are standard. The opinion does not supply the sentencing date or custody dates, so the credit figure cannot be independently checked, but nothing in the opinion indicates error. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, identified the possible issues flagged by counsel, invited and received no supplemental brief from the defendant, and recited the facts, charges, plea, and sentence before finding no arguable issue. The opinion is brief and does not discuss the specific advisements or compute the credits, but a Wende affirmance requires no more, and nothing recited suggests error.
Opinion
Filed 6/6/14 P. v. Perez CA4/1 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. d
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064821
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN309800)
CAMILO RUIZ PEREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Morgan Ford, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Defendant Camilo Ruiz Perez's appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asking this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm the judgment. INTRODUCTION At the June 14, 2013 arraignment hearing, Perez─assisted by counsel and a Spanish language interpreter─initialed and signed a guilty plea form indicating that, in exchange for a 12-year stipulated prison term, he was pleading guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)) and admitting an allegation that in committing the offense he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon (an automobile)
within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). Perez admitted as the factual basis for his guilty plea that he "unlawfully and without malice kill[ed] Joaquin Ruiz Perez" and he "personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon during the course of the manslaughter, to wit: a motor vehicle."
The court advised Perez, who again was assisted by counsel and a Spanish language interpreter, of his constitutional rights and the potential consequences of his plea, including the possible immigration consequences of the plea, and obtained Perez's waivers of his rights. Perez pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter and admitted the enhancement allegation. The court accepted the plea, finding Perez voluntarily and intelligently waived his constitutional rights, and he understood the consequences of his plea.
Thereafter, the court sentenced Perez to the stipulated term of 11 years in state prison for the voluntary manslaughter conviction, plus a one-year consecutive term for his admission of the enhancement allegation, for a total prison term of 12 years. The 1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 court awarded a total of 409 days of credit for time served, and imposed a $3,360 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a suspended restitution fine in the same amount under section 1202.45, a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $154 criminal justice administration fee (Gov.
Code, § 29550.1).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
On September 2, 2012, after Perez, his brother Joaquin Ruiz Perez (the victim), and a friend drank beer and played basketball at a school, Perez and his brother started arguing after more drinking. That evening San Diego County Sheriff's Department deputies were dispatched to the scene of a hit-and-run incident reported by Perez. When they arrived on the scene, they found Joaquin dead on the sidewalk. The autopsy report later showed that Joaquin's injuries were consistent with his having been struck on the right side by a vehicle. Perez told the deputies he had not witnessed the incident and he did not know the deceased.
The next day, a sheriff's deputy interviewing Joaquin's family recognized Perez.
Later, an eyewitness told the police he had seen a red Dodge pickup truck with a ladder rack swerve twice toward a pedestrian. Sheriff's deputies went to the apartment complex where Perez lived, located a red Dodge pickup truck with a ladder rack, and determined it was registered to Perez. Perez later surrendered and said, "The accident, it's my fault."
2 As Perez entered a guilty plea before a preliminary hearing was held in this matter, the following factual background is derived from the post-plea probation report, which was based primarily on the police report. 3 DISCUSSION Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U. S. 738, counsel refers to the following as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) Did the court make the necessary advisements and obtain the required waivers before accepting Perez's guilty plea? and (2) did the court grant Perez the proper time credits and properly impose the fines and penalties?
We granted Perez permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues raised by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Perez has been represented adequately by appellate counsel.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12