1 

Filed 10/24/13 P. v. Braggs CA3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT 

(San Joaquin) 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

JAMAL DUPREE BRAGGS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

C073422 

(Super. Ct. Nos 

SF120037A & SF122475A) 

 This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In 

April 2012 defendant forged a check. He was charged in San Joaquin County case 

No. SF120037A with forgery in violation of Penal Code section 470, subdivision (d)1 and 

receipt of stolen property in violation of section 496, subdivision (a). It was further 

alleged that defendant served three prior prison terms, as described in section 667.5, 

subdivision (b) and was previously convicted of a serious felony (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 

667, subd. (d)). 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2 

 Defendant pled guilty to forgery. In exchange for his plea, imposition of sentence 

was suspended and defendant was ordered to serve five years of formal probation and pay 

various fines and fees. The remaining charges were dismissed and the enhancements 

stricken, in light of the plea agreement. 

 In August 2012 the People filed a petition alleging defendant violated his 

probation by failing to report to the probation department. 

 In December 2012 defendant was driving a vehicle in a dangerous and reckless 

manner. Law enforcement pursued defendant and directed him to stop. When defendant 

stopped the vehicle, he pushed the passengers out, including a child who was not yet one 

year old. Defendant was subsequently charged in San Joaquin County case 

No. SF122475A with felony child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)), reckless driving 

(Veh. Code, § 23103), resisting a peace officer (§ 148), and driving without a license 

(Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). 

 Defendant pled guilty to child endangerment. He also admitted violating his 

probation in case No. SF120037A. In exchange for his plea and admission, the People 

agreed to a four-year prison term on the conviction for child endangerment and that he 

would serve his 16-month prison sentence in case No. SF120037A concurrently. The 

remaining charges in case No. SF122475A were dismissed in the interest of justice and 

an unrelated matter, San Joaquin County case No. SM280914A, also was dismissed. 

Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea and the court ordered him to pay 

various fines and fees. 

 Defendant appeals. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of 

probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 
3 

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the filing of the opening brief. 

 Defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he raises several claims that he was 

dissatisfied with trial counsel. He claims trial counsel refused to give the trial court a 

letter wherein defendant asked for help with his drug addiction, along with “paperwork 

[he] had from the parole department.” He also claims counsel never gave him a 

satisfactory explanation on why he was charged with felony child endangerment when 

the child he pushed out of the car was not actually injured. To the extent this is a claim 

for ineffective assistance of counsel, we reject the claim. Based on our review of the 

record, ineffective assistance of counsel is not established. (Strickland v. Washington

(1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 691-692 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-694, 696-697]; People v. 

Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218.) 

 Defendant also claims he was “pressured” into a plea agreement. Defendant’s 

claim is not properly before this court. Defendant’s request for a certificate of probable 

cause was denied. Therefore, he cannot challenge the validity of his plea agreement on 

this appeal. (§1237.5.) 

 Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, we conclude 

the judgment must be modified to include imposition of an omitted mandatory fee. 

 The trial court failed to orally impose the mandatory criminal facilities assessment 

(Gov. Code, § 70373) in the amount of $30 in case No. SF120037A. This fee is likewise 

omitted from the abstract of judgment. We shall modify the judgment to include the fee 

and direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. (See People v. 

Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment in San Joaquin County case No. SF120037A is modified to impose 

a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). As modified, the judgment is 
4 

affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and 

forward certified copies to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

 The judgment in San Joaquin County case No. SF122475A is affirmed. 

 BLEASE , Acting P. J. 

We concur: 

 BUTZ , J. 

 MURRAY , J.