Filed 4/29/14 P. v. Nunez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E060120
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. RIF1302664 &
RIF1307709
RICHARD NUNEZ, JR.,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan, Judge.
Affirmed.
Loleena H. Ansari, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, in case No. RIF1302664, defendant
and appellant Richard Nunez, Jr., pled guilty to felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487,
1
subd. (c));1 in return, the remaining charges were dismissed and defendant was sentenced
to the low term of 16 months in state prison to be served concurrently with the agreed-
upon term in case No. RIF1307709. In case No. RIF1307709, defendant pled guilty to
robbery (§ 211); in exchange the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant
was sentenced to a stipulated term of two years in state prison. Defendant appeals from
the judgment, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea as well as
the validity of the plea. We find no error and affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2013, defendant took personal property from Jane Doe by force or fear
in the County of Riverside.
On July 14, 2013, defendant took personal property from Trevor N. by force or
fear in the County of Riverside.
On July 11, 2013, in case No. RIF1302664, a felony complaint was filed, charging
defendant with robbery (§ 211; count 1) and misdemeanor battery (§ 243, subd. (e)).
On July 31, 2013, in case No. RIF1307709, a felony complaint was filed together
with a petition to revoke defendant’s probation in a prior case. The complaint charged
defendant with robbery (§ 211; count 1); being an accessory after the fact (§ 32; count 2);
and misdemeanor resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The petition to revoke
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2
defendant’s probation in case No. RIM1117174 alleged that defendant violated the terms
and conditions of his probation by violating the law.
On October 16, 2013, defendant brought a Marsden2 motion in both cases,
claiming his trial counsel was not adequately working on his cases, explaining his
maximum sentences, and making any counteroffers on his behalf. After examining
defendant and counsel, the trial court denied the Marsden motion, finding defendant did
not provide any evidence to show trial counsel failed to accomplish her duties or did
anything wrong.
Defendant thereafter entered into negotiated pleas in both cases. In case
No. RIF1302664, after the People added a third count of felony grand theft (§ 487,
subd. (c)), defendant pled guilty to that added count. In return, the remaining
charges would be dismissed and defendant would be sentenced to a stipulated term of
16 months in state prison to be served concurrently with the agreed-upon term in case
No. RIF1307709. In case No. RIF1307709, defendant pled guilty to robbery (§ 211); in
exchange the remaining allegations would be dismissed and defendant would be
sentenced to a stipulated term of two years in state prison. Defendant also admitted to
violating his probation in his prior case. After examining defendant, the trial court found
the pleas and admissions were entered into freely and voluntarily; that defendant
knowingly and intelligently waived his rights; and that there was a factual basis for his
pleas. Defendant thereafter requested to be immediately sentenced. Defendant was
2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
3
sentenced in accordance with his plea agreements and awarded 165 days credit for time
served in case No. RIF1302664, and 95 days in case No. RIF1307709.3
On November 25, 2013, defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, challenging the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea as well as the validity of the plea.
Defendant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was
coerced into pleading guilty. Defendant also requested a certificate of probable cause.
On November 27, 2013, the trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of
probable cause.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. 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, and he
has not done so.
3 In his probation violation case, case No. RIM1117174, the trial court revoked
and terminated defendant’s probation, and sentenced defendant to 365 days with credit of
389 days for time served. The court noted that the probation case was “done” and that
defendant’s fines and fees were collectable as a civil judgment.
4
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.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
MILLER
J.
5