Filed 1/9/20 P. v. Guzman CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE JESUS GUZMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

G057384

(Super. Ct. No. 15NF3066)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert R. Fitzgerald, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Helen S. Irza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Jose Jesus Guzman pleaded guilty to: domestic battery causing injury with a prior (Pen. Code, § 243, subds. (a), (f)(1), counts 1 & 3); criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a), counts 2 & 5); and aggravated assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 4). Guzman also admitted sentencing enhancements, including: as to counts 2, 3 and 5, personal use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)); as to counts 3 and 4, inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)); nine prior serious or violent “Strike” convictions (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)); and one and five-year prison prior convictions (§ 667.5, subds. (a), (b)).

As agreed in the guilty plea form, the court struck all but one of the prior “Strike” convictions and sentenced Guzman to 18 years in state prison.

Guzman filed a notice of appeal, which states: “This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea and do not affect its validity.” Nothing in the record indicates he obtained a certificate of probable cause.

We appointed counsel to represent Guzman on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court he found no arguable issues to assert on Guzman’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Counsel and this court notified Guzman that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, the time to do so has passed and we have received no communication from Guzman.

To assist us in our independent review, counsel suggested we consider whether the court erred when it denied Guzman’s request for new appointed counsel after a hearing. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).)

FACTS

Paragraph No. 16 of the guilty plea form states: “Appeal Waiver: I understand I have the right to appeal from decisions and orders of the Superior Court. I waive and give up my right to appeal from any and all decisions and orders made in my case, including motions to suppress evidence brought pursuant to Penal Code [section] 1538.5. I waive and give up my right to appeal from my guilty plea. I waive and give up my right to appeal from any legally authorized sentence the court imposes which is within the terms and limits of this plea agreement.”

At the conclusion of the change of plea and sentencing hearing the court asked Guzman, “And now, sir, do you waive your right to appeal, understanding no other court will ever look at this case?” Guzman replied, “Yes, sir.”

DISCUSSION

We have independently reviewed the entire record according to our obligations under Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and we have found no arguable issues on appeal.

The issue suggested by counsel must be rejected because: (1) Guzman waived his right to appeal (People v. Vargas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1653); and (2) Guzman failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68 (Panizzon); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)

In any event, Guzman was sentenced as agreed. He got exactly what he bargained for and thus cannot complain. (Panizzon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 80.)

Finally, even if we were to consider the issue suggested by counsel, we would conclude the court did not err. The court conducted a full hearing as required by Marsden, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Guzman’s request for new appointed counsel. (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 912 [court does not abuse its discretion in denying a Marsden motion unless the defendant shows failure to replace counsel would substantially impair the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel].)

 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.