1

Filed 12/23/15 P. v. Cervantes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SALVADOR VERA CERVANTES,

Defendant and Appellant. C077167

(Super. Ct. No. 62128695)

Appointed counsel for defendant Salvador Vera Cervantes asked this court to

review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.

( People v. Wende ( 1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436 ( Wende ).) After reviewing the entire record, we

discovered the trial court ’ s sentencing order is not consistent wit h defendant ’ s negotiated

plea agreement , namely the remaining charges were not dismissed . Accordingly, we

remand the matter to the trial court to dismiss the remaining charges

. In all other

respects, the judgment is affirmed.2 BACKGROUND

On March 4, 201 4, defendant entered the home of Marvin and Marie K.,

while they were in the home, with the intent to steal from them and, in fact, stole from

them.

The People charged defendant with burglary of an inhabited dwelling, grand theft

of a firearm, unlawful taking of a vehicle, and being a felon in possession of a firearm

. The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of two strike offenses.

Defendant ple ade d no contest to the burglary charge and admitted he was previously

convicted of two stri ke offenses for attempted voluntary manslaughter . In exchange for

his plea, the People agreed they would move to dismiss the remaining charges with a

Harvey 1 waiver at the time of sentencing

. Following entry of his plea, defendant invited the trial court to dismiss one of his

prior strike conviction s pursuant to People v. Romero (2002) 99 Cal. App.4th 1418, and

Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (a). The trial court declined to dismiss the prior

strike conviction . After this ruling, defendant informed the court he wanted to withdraw

his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held a hearing on

defendant’s request to relieve his appointed counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden

(1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118. The trial court denied defendant’s re quest.

On August 18, 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve a term of 25

years to life in state prison based on his plea to the burglary charge and two prior st r ikes

. The court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarde d him a total of

193 days of custody credits.

Defendant appeals with a certificate of probable cause.

1 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 754

.3 DISCUSSION

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

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Before the 30 days elapsed, defendant

asked this court to relieve his appointed counsel for ineffective assistance. We denied his

request.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we discovered the

People did not move to dismiss the remain ing charges at the sentencing hearing as

agreed in the negotiated plea agreement. As a result, the trial court did not dismiss the

firearms and vehicle theft charges at the sentencing hearing. Based on the terms of the

negotiated plea agreement, we reman d the matter to the trial court to dismiss the

remaining charges.

DISPOSITION

The matter is remanded to the trial court to dismiss the grand theft of a firearm

, unlawful taking of a vehicle, and being a felon in possession of a firearm charges, in

accor dance with the negotiated plea agreement. In all other respects, the judgment is

affirmed.

/s/
HOCH , J.

We concur:

/s/
BLEASE , Acting P. J.

/s/
BUTZ , J.