Filed 6/30/15 P. v. Rhoades CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEFFE R Y CURTIS RHOADES,
Defendant and Appellant. G050984
(Super. Ct. No. 14NF3449)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Roger B. Robbins, Judge. Affirmed.

Thomas K. Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 Defendant Jeffery Curtis Rhoades pled guilty to theft with three prior convictions, and admitted allegations of multiple prior convictions and an out

- on

- bail sentencing enhancement

. Defendant appeal s

.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders )
, setting fo rth the facts of the case, raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review the entire record. We provided defendant 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. The time for filing a supplemental brief has passed, and no written arg ument has been filed by defendant.

We have examined the entire record and appointed appellate counsel’s

Wende/Anders brief; we find no reasonably arguable issue. ( Wende
, supra , 25

Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

B ACKGROUND

Defendant was charged in a f elony complaint with one count of theft with three prior convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a) .) The felony complaint also included a sentencing enhancement for defendant having committed the crime while out on bail on another crime (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b)), and allegations of six prior prison term convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5,

subdivision (b), and one prior conviction pursuant to Penal Code sections 667,

subdi vision s (d) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(1). Defendant pled guilty, admitted the sentencing enhance ment, and admitted all priors.

Defendant’s written allocution reads as follows: “In Orange County,
California, on 7/12/2014, I did u nlawfully steal/take away the personal property of Home Depot, with the intent to deprive Home Depot of possession & ownership and I had been convicted of theft related crime for which I was sentenced to serve time at a penal

institute in the following cas es : on 12/30/1998 in Riverside County, CA in3

HE [ F ] 001711, 9/7/1995 in Sa n Bernardino County, CA in FSB08 411, 5/16/1994 in San Bernardino County CA in FW [ V ] 02868, 9/20/1990 in San Bernardino County, CA in

SCR50987.” The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison. 1
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Defendant was also sentenced to concurrent terms on two other cases. Those cases are not at issue in this appeal.

A NALYSIS OF P OTENTIAL I SSUES Appointed counsel suggested we con sider whether the trial court abused its discretion when it accepted defendant’s proffered statement of facts as sufficient to form a prima facie factual basis for his guilty plea. We conclude that the statemen t of facts

was sufficient, and the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion . The court questioned defendant to determine whether the factual basis for the guilty plea in this case was true; defendant confirmed that it was before pleading guilty, and his trial counsel joined in the plea and waivers. (Pen. Code, § 1192.5; People v. Holmes (2004) 32 Cal.4 th 432,

435

- 436 .) The statement of facts included all essential elements of the crime with which defendant was charged. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a) ; People v. Ortega (1998) 19

Cal.4th 686, 693.)

Our review of the record pursuant to Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, and

Anders
, supra , 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented

defendant in this appeal.

1 Defendant later filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 to designate the felony violation as a misdemeanor. The prosecution did not object, and the trial court granted the motion. The court resentenced defendant to 365 days in the Orange County jail, and awarded him 366 days of custody and conduct credit.4 D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

ARONSON, J.