Filed 12/17/15 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E063324
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1500475)
WILLIAM JOSEPH SMITH, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.
Pace, Judge. Affirmed.
Marianne Harguindeguy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant William Joseph
Smith pled no contest to unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851,
subd. (a); count 3) and assault with means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen.
1
Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 4). Defendant also admitted that he had suffered a prior
conviction for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (e)). In
return, the remaining charges and enhancement allegations were dismissed and defendant
was sentenced to a stipulated term of four years in state prison with credit for time
served. Defendant appeals from the judgment based on ineffective assistance of
counsel.(IAC) We find no error and affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
On February 5, 2015, San Bernardino Police Officer R. Schuelke was told to be on
the lookout for a silver Hyundai Accent GL with a California license plate number
4SAG599 by San Bernardino Police Department narcotics officers. While patrolling the
North East District of the city of San Bernardino in a marked police car, Officer Schuelke
saw the subject vehicle and, after running the license plate, noticed the vehicle was listed
as “ ‘Stolen.’ ”
Officer Schuelke initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle; however, the vehicle fled.
Following a short pursuit, the vehicle stopped, and the driver, later identified as
defendant, fled on foot. Officer Schuelke stopped his vehicle and pursued defendant on
foot. During the chase, defendant threw a “large heavy[]metal stand” approximately six
feet in height and 30 pounds in weight at Officer Schuelke. Officer Schuelke attempted
to block the stand with his right arm but the stand struck Officer Schuelke in the
1 The factual background is taken from the police report.
2
forehead, resulting in a laceration on his forehead and abrasions on his right forearm and
wrist. With the assistance of another officer, defendant was eventually apprehended and
arrested.
After defendant waived his constitutional rights, defendant admitted that he had
taken the vehicle without permission from the owner and that he had fled from Officer
Schuelke. A search of the vehicle revealed a shaved hacksaw blade shaped like a vehicle
key on the driver’s seat of the vehicle.
On February 9, 2015, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with assault
upon a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c); count 1); resisting an executive officer
(Pen. Code, § 69; count 2); and unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code,
§ 10851, subd. (a); count 3). As to count 3, the complaint further alleged that defendant
had suffered two prior vehicle theft convictions (Veh. Code, § 10851, subds. (a) & (e)).
At a pre-preliminary hearing on February 19, 2015, the People amended the complaint to
include count 4, assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury, a felony, in violation
of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4).
On that same date, defendant thereafter entered into a negotiated plea agreement
with the People. He pled no contest to counts 3 and 4 (as a non-strike offense) and
admitted a prior vehicle theft conviction in exchange for a stipulated term of four years in
state prison and dismissal of the remaining charges and enhancement allegations. As part
of the plea, defendant waived his right to appeal. After directly examining defendant, the
trial court found that defendant had read and understood his plea form; that defendant
3
understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea; that the plea was
entered into voluntarily, knowingly, freely, and intelligently; that defendant waived each
of his constitutional rights; and that there was a factual basis for the plea. Defendant was
thereafter immediately sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement and awarded
28 days presentence credit for time served.
On April 8, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal and request for certificate of
probable cause based on IAC. Defendant claimed that he took the plea agreement on the
basis the assault offense was not a strike, but he believed his attorney circled the plea
form noting the offense to be a strike. On April 10, 2015, the trial court denied
defendant’s request for certificate of probable cause, noting the assault offense “is not a
strike.”
II
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, 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.
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:
HOLLENHORST
J.
McKINSTER
J.
5