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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Code 1 section 4501 , subdivision (a) and admitted the enhancement allegations that he personal ly inflict ed 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 year s for the prior serious felony conviction

. A n a dditional charge
of attempted murder ( § 664 , § 187 , subd. (a)), two additional counts of assault
with a deadly weapon (§ 4500 , § 4 501, 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 ha s 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 d efendant 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 d efendant 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 use d at which time the d efendant stopped. A bloody weapon was found near the d efendant

. . . . The victim did
lose consciousness as well as loss of a ll 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 question ed 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 o n defendant’s ability pay. The prosecutor presented evidence that since September 2018, defendant ha d 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 $1 7 5 at a time. The prosecutor argued that adding 14 years to his original release date of 20 41 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 effecti ve 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.