1 Filed 2/26/15 P. v. Rones CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. VINCENT ANDREW RONES, Defendant and Appellant. A142891 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-632713)

Vincent Rones appeals from a judgment follo wing his no contest pleas as a result of a negotiated disposition. He did not obta in a certificate of probable cause and his notice of appeal indicates that he is appe aling his sentence and other matters occurring after the entry of his plea. Rones’ court-a ppointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to
determine whether there are a ny arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
BACKGROUND A Santa Rosa police officer was checkin g on a local motel room after the staff reported seeing several people coming and goin g from the room. Rones was there with
five women. After brief interaction with so me of the women the o fficer suspected that they were involved in prostitution. A check indicate d that Rones ha d an outstanding warrant from Pennsylvania for pros titution-related charges.2 It was later discovered that two of th e women had recently come to California after meeting Rones over the internet. They both came thinking Rones would get them work as exotic dancers, but once they arrived they learned that he was directing a prostitution ring and they became a part of it. The women paid Rone s all the money they got from men for sex, and each had a turn sleeping and having sex with Rones on a regular basis. The women participated in the prostitution and slept with Rones because they were afraid of him and he c ould be violent with them. Rones was charged in an information with two counts of rape by force or fear in
violation of Penal Code s ection 261, subdivision (a)(2), 1 two counts of making criminal
threats in violation of secti on 422, subdivision (a), two c ounts of human trafficking in violation of section 236.1, subdivision (b), and two counts of pimping in violation of section 266h, subdivision (a). A prior stri ke was alleged under section 1170.12 and a prior serious felony under sec tion 667, subdivision (a)(1). Pursuant to an agreed di sposition, Rones entered an Alford/West no contest plea to a single count of making a criminal threat and no contest pleas to two counts of pimping. 2 He admitted the prior felony allegation unde r section 1170.12. The remaining counts
were dismissed. At sentencing defense counsel moved to strike the prior conviction and Rones
moved pro se to withdraw his plea. The court deni ed both motions. In accordance with the plea, Rones was sentenced to prison for 14 years and 8 months, consisting of 6 years for pimping (§ 266h), doubled due to the prior serious felony conviction, plus a
concurrent one-third of the mid-term sentence of 2 years eight months for criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)). The court imposed a $ 10,000 restitution fine, a $10,000 suspended

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 These cases authorize a defendant to en ter a guilty plea and still maintain her innocence, provided that there is a factual basis for the plea. ( North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25; People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595.)3 parole revocation fine and appropriate fe es. Rones was awarde d 908 days of presentence credit. His appeal was timely.
DISCUSSION The record does not include a request fo r a certificate of probable cause, and Rones’ notice of appeal indicated it is base d on his sentence or ot her matters occurring after the plea. There was no error. The co urt did not abuse its discretion in denying Rones’ motion to withdraw his plea or to st rike his prior conviction. Moreover, Rones
was sentenced in accordance w ith the negotiated disposition leading to his plea. Our
review of the record reveals no issu e that requires further briefing. Counsel has represented to us that he advised Rones of his intention to file a
Wende brief in this case and of Rones’ right to submit supplemental argument on his own
behalf. He has not done so.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.4 _ ____________ ____________ Siggins, J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ McGuiness, P.J.

_____________ ____________ Pollak, J.