Filed 12/26/19 P. v. Carriger CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT DANIEL CARRIGER,

Defendant and Appellant.

E073254

(Super.Ct.No. FWV19000793)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel W. Detienne, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant and appellant Robert Daniel Carriger pleaded no contest to driving or taking a vehicle exceeding $950 without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). In exchange, the remaining charge and enhancement allegations were dismissed, and defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of 16 months in county jail with 298 days of credit for time served. Defendant appeals from an order after judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The victim met defendant over social media. On December 24, 2018, the victim and defendant agreed to meet at a residence in the city of Fontana. The victim drove his Ford F150 truck, which contained approximately $2,000 worth of Christmas presents, to the agreed-upon residence. The victim and defendant hung out at the residence for about an hour. During this time, defendant asked the victim for a ride to Victorville, and the victim repeatedly refused defendant’s request.

Eventually, the victim got up to leave but was unable to locate his keys. He went outside, saw that his truck was still there, and looked inside his truck but could not find his keys. The victim returned inside the residence and could not find defendant. The victim walked back outside and noticed that his truck was gone. The victim had not given defendant permission to drive or take his vehicle.

Defendant later sent a text message to the victim informing him that he could pick up his truck the next day at a specific location. When the victim went to retrieve his truck, he noticed the Christmas presents were no longer in his truck.

Following a preliminary hearing, on March 27, 2019, an information was filed charging defendant with driving or taking a vehicle exceeding $950 without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1) and grand theft exceeding $950 (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 1, the information alleged that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for grand theft auto (Pen. Code, § 666.5). The information further alleged that defendant had sustained a prior serious or violent felony strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).

On May 30, 2019, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded no contest to count 1. In return, defendant was promised the remaining allegations would be dismissed, and he would be sentenced to a stipulated term of 16 months in county jail with 298 days of credit for time served. Prior to pleading no contest, defendant executed a felony plea form. The trial court went over the plea form with defendant. In response to the trial court’s query, defendant indicated that he had carefully gone over the plea form with his attorney and that he understood everything on the plea form. The trial court also informed defendant of his constitutional rights, the consequences of pleading no contest, and the negotiated plea agreement. Defendant indicated to the court that he understood his rights, consequences of the plea, and the plea agreement. In response to the court’s inquiry of whether anyone had made promises to him other than discussed in the plea agreement to get him to plead, defendant answered in the negative. Defendant also acknowledged to the court that he had enough time to speak with his attorney. Defendant’s counsel indicated to the court that he had adequate time to speak with defendant about his case and the plea form, and that he was satisfied defendant understood everything on the form.

After directly examining defendant, the court found that defendant understood his plea form, the nature of the charges, the consequences of pleading no contest, and his constitutional rights. The court also found that defendant had knowingly, intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, and that there was a factual basis for his plea. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea based upon the preliminary hearing transcript. Upon his request, defendant was immediately sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement to 16 months in county jail, and the remaining allegations were dismissed.

On July 22, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and a request for a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

III

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

MILLER

Acting P. J.

SLOUGH

J.