Filed 5/31/13 P. v. Saechao CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL SAECHAO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A137512

 (Alameda County

 Super. Ct. No. 169769C)

After entering a plea of no contest to home invasion robbery as well as admitting 

one prior serious or violent felony, defendant was sentenced, consistent with a plea 

agreement, to an aggregate term of 17 years in state prison. He applied for, but was 

denied a certificate of probable cause. Defendant’s counsel has raised no issues and asks 

this court to examine the record to determine if it reveals any issues that deserve further 

briefing. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done 

so. Upon review of the record for potential error, we conclude no arguable issues are 

presented for review and affirm the judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

On June 27, 2012, defendant and three cohorts forced entry into the home of an 

elderly couple. The elderly couple along with a third individual were taken to a rear 

bedroom and ordered to open a safe. One of the victims was hit in the head for being 

 

1 Because defendant entered a plea of no contest and waived preliminary hearing, 

we take the facts from the probation officer’s report. 
2

unable to open it. When all three victims could not open the safe, they were locked in a 

closet and a dresser was placed in front of the door. As defendant and his cohorts 

attempted to forcibly open the safe, neighbors heard the commotion and notified police. 

When the police arrived, defendant along with the others fled the home. Defendant was 

found hiding in the rear shed of a neighbor’s residence. 

A criminal complaint was filed on June 29, 2012, charging defendant with three 

counts of home invasion robbery (Pen. Code,2§§ 211/212, subd. (a); counts one, two and 

three), two counts of first degree burglary (§§ 459/460, subd. (a); counts four and eight), 

and three counts of false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; counts five, six and seven). 

The complaint alleged a number of enhancements including each crime in counts one 

through four was a serious felony. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c).) It further alleged defendant 

suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions. (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, 

subd. (c), & 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) 

On August 24, 2012, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no 

contest to count one, home invasion robbery, and admitted one prior serious or violent 

felony. In exchange for defendant’s plea and admission, he was promised a 17-year 

sentence in state prison and dismissal of all other counts, alleged priors, and 

enhancements. After the court explained the agreed upon disposition, defendant stated he 

agreed to the terms of the agreement. In addition to the waiver of rights form initialed 

and signed by defendant, the court also explained the consequences of defendant’s plea 

and accepted his waiver of rights. The court found there was a factual basis for the plea 

and certified the case to the superior court for judgment and sentencing. 

On September 24, 2012, the court sentenced defendant to the middle term of 

6 years on the home invasion robbery count, doubled to 12 years under the “Two Strikes” 

provision. (§ 667, subd. (e)(1).)3 Defendant’s sentence was executed on November 16, 

2012, at which time the court sentenced defendant in accord with the negotiated 

 

2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3

It appears the court inadvertently failed to impose a consecutive sentence of five 

years pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1). 
3

disposition to the middle term of 6 years on the home invasion robbery, doubled to 12 

years pursuant to the two strikes provisions, plus 5 years consecutive (§ 667, 

subd. (a)(1)), for a total sentence of 17 years in state prison. The court further imposed 

various fees and fines. Defendant was awarded 164 days of presentence custody credits. 

DISCUSSION

On January 3, 2013, defendant sought the issuance of a certificate of probable 

cause. That request was denied by the superior court on March 18, 2013. Under the 

mandate of section 1237.5, and because a certificate of probable cause was denied by the 

trial court, the only conceivable issues on appeal are sentencing issues and any denial of a 

section 1538.5 motion. Defendant did not file a 1538.5 motion. Nor is sentencing an 

issue because as already noted, the sentence specifically contemplated by the plea 

agreement was verbally agreed to by defendant in open court. 

Further, defendant, prior to the entry of his plea, signed and initialed a waiver of 

rights form and was thoroughly and accurately advised by the court of his rights and the 

consequences of his plea which he freely and voluntarily waived. We find nothing in the 

record to indicate that defendant lacked competence or understanding to enter the plea.

Defendant was ably represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. 

In sum, we have reviewed the record on appeal and find no issues requiring further 

briefing. The judgment is affirmed. 
4

_________________________

Margulies, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Banke, J.

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.*

 

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.