1

Filed 3/3/21 P. v. Gallegos CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND CARLOS GALLEGOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A161061

(Del Norte County

Super. Ct. No. CRPB19-5141)

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Raymond Carlos Gallegos 

pled guilty to a felony charge of assault with deadly weapon by a prisoner in 

violation of Penal Code1 section 4501, subdivision (a) and admitted the 

enhancement allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury

(§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and had one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, 

subd. (a)). In exchange for his plea, defendant agreed to a sentence of 

fourteen years, consisting of the upper term of six years on the assault

charge, three consecutive years for infliction of great bodily injury, five 

consecutive years for the prior serious felony conviction. An additional charge 

of attempted murder (§ 664, § 187, subd. (a)), two additional counts of assault 

with a deadly weapon (§ 4500, § 4501, subd. (b)) and a charge of unlawful 

possession of a weapon (§ 4502, subd. (a)) were dismissed in connection with 

the plea agreement.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2

Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief asking that this court 

conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has informed defendant that he has the right 

to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, which defendant has not done. 

We conclude there are no meritorious issues that require further briefing and 

affirm the judgment.

Background

At the plea hearing, counsel offered the following factual basis for the 

plea: “On September 17th, 2018, this defendant was an inmate at Pelican 

Bay State Prison, serving a life sentence. He ran from his cell . . . into the 

victim’s cell . . . as the cell doors were being opened for morning yard release. 

. . . [¶] The defendant ran into that cell with a weapon [and] began stabbing 

[the victim] numerous times. The victim was seen trying to crawl away from 

the attack. [Pepper] spray had to be used at which time the defendant 

stopped. A bloody weapon was found near the defendant . . . . The victim did 

lose consciousness as well as loss of all pulse for a while. Life-saving 

measures were used, and he was taken by ambulance to Sutter Coast 

Hospital.”

Discussion

Defendant was properly advised before entering his plea and 

stipulating to a factual basis for the plea. While entering his plea, defendant 

questioned whether sentencing on the prior serious felony enhancement 

amounted to “double jeopardy or something like that.” The court correctly 

explained that the enhancement did not punish defendant again for the prior 

crime but added time to his sentence for the current crime because defendant 

“didn’t remain free of criminal conduct.” Defendant confirmed that he 

understood and would admit the section 667, subdivision (a) enhancement.
3

Defendant was advised that the matter would be referred to the probation 

department for a presentencing report and that the sentencing judge would 

decide whether the plea was in the interests of justice.

On July 23, 2020, the court found that the plea agreement was in the 

interest of justice and sentenced defendant in conformity with the stipulated 

sentence. The court’s decision to accept the stipulated sentence was both 

consistent with the plea agreement and appropriate in light of defendant's 

lengthy criminal history.

Prior to imposing $370 in fees and fines (§§ 1202.4, 1465.8, Gov. Code, 

§ 70373), the court conducted a hearing on defendant’s ability pay. The 

prosecutor presented evidence that since September 2018, defendant had

paid $1,000 in fees and fines on his murder conviction and at the time of the 

hearing he owed $6,381.40. His prison account also showed that defendant 

has a “steady string of people” sending him money in amounts varying from 

$25 to $175 at a time. The prosecutor argued that adding 14 years to his 

original release date of 2041 would give defendant ample time to pay the 

proposed $370 in fees and fines. Defendant submitted without challenging 

the prosecutor’s showing. Substantial evidence supports the finding that 

defendant has the ability to pay the fees and fines imposed by the court.

Having examined the record to ensure that defendant receives effective 

appellate review, we find no basis for reversal or further briefing. (Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

POLLAK, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.

TUCHER, J.