1 Filed 11/27/13 P. v. Mahrt CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. GREGORY MAHRT, Defendant and Appellant. A138851
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR623663)

Gregory Mahrt appeals from a judgment en tered on his plea of guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition (Pen. Code §§ 29800, subd. (a)(1 ), 30305, subd. (a)(1)) 1 despite firearm restrictions im posed due to a prior felony co nviction. His court-appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no legal issu es and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 26 Cal.3d 436.
FACTS AND PROC EEDINGS BELOW The presentence report file d with the court by the pr obation department on May 16, 2013, which was used by the court to es tablish a factual basis for appellant’s plea upon the stipulation of defe nse counsel, describes the per tinent facts as follows: “On 09/03/12 at approximately 10:00 p.m., deput ies were dispatched to a residence on Magnolia Avenue in Petaluma regarding a verbal argument between a male and female over a gun. As the deputies arrived at th e residence, the defendant Gregory Mahrt
walked outside and was detained and asked ab out the argument and the gun. Mahrt was

1 All statutory references are to the Pe nal Code unless otherwise indicated.2 uncooperative and would not answer any qu estions. When asked about the female reportedly involved in the argum ent, Mahrt reported she left the residence prior to their arrival. Based on the possible domestic viol ence report and the mention of a deadly weapon, the deputies conducted a search of the residence. “Deputies began the search at the nor thernmost structure on the property which appeared to be a garage that had been conv erted to a room. As the deputies approached the room, Mahrt began yelling that he did not want the deputies to enter his room. Upon entry into the room, deputies observed several ammunition cans on the floor in the center of the room. One of the cans was open and the deputy noticed it was full of
miscellaneous calibers of ammunition. Also noticed was what appeared to be an AR-15 Rifle on a shelf above the bed, which wa s later determined to be a replica. “A deputy then re-contact ed the defendant and questioned his criminal conviction history, with Mahrt admitting he had a past fe lony conviction. The defendant was placed under arrest for being a felon in possession of ammunition. The search of the defendant’s room continued as deputies located 11 cans of ammunition full of multiple calibers of ammunition and a guitar case that contained two firearms: a loaded shotgun with the barrel removed (barrel was in the case with th e shotgun), and an AK-47 Rifle with a fully loaded 30-round mag azine in the case. Also located were 19 capacity rifle magazines in
the room. “Mahrt was interviewed regarding the fire arms and ammunition. He stated he was ‘holding’ them for a friend but would not iden tify who. He also confirmed he had sole access to the room and everything in the room belonged to him. “Mahrt was transported to Sonoma Co unty Jail. The firearm and ammunition
seized were booked into evidence. The deputy also photogra phed a handwritten statement on the door that read ‘In times of ty ranny and injustice, when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.’ ” Appellant was declared a ward of the cour t in 1984 and placed on juvenile formal probation, which he violated. He has a lo ng history of substa nce abuse and a lengthy subsequent record of misdemea nor and felony convictions as a juvenile and adult. Two3 felony convictions resulted in commitments to the Californi a Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation. One such commitment, in 1988, involve d the throwing of a pipe bomb through the window of a video store, inju ring one of the owners (former § 12309). The other, in 2001, involved possession of magazines for a Glock pistol, a billy club, a variety of explosive devices, 600 rounds of a mmunition, a Ruger mini 14 semi-automatic
.223 caliber rifle fitted with a flash suppressor, and a loaded 30/30 Marlin long rifle (§§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), 12312, 11 70.12). The last named weap on was found in appellant’s
vehicle after he fled from CHP officers who attempted to conduct a traffic stop. When booked for this offense appellant “told the CH P officer that if given the chance, he would
have shot the CHP Officer.” On September 5, 2012, the Sonoma Coun ty District Attorney filed a two count complaint charging appellant with being a fe lon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of ammuniti on (§ 30305, subd. (a )(1)) despite being prohibited from possessing such items due to a 1989 conviction for violation of former section 12309, exploding a destru ctive device causing bodily injury. The co mplaint also alleged that due to the latter violation appe llant was ineligible fo r probation (§ 1170, subd. (h)(3)), and that the violation of former section 12309 was a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12). On November 2, 2012, the trial cour t denied appellant’s Marsden motion to replace his deputy public defender. On November 30, 20 12, pursuant to a plea agreemen t, appellant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and signed a 4-page “ Tahl rights waiver form” waiving his constitutional rights, as to which he was also orally admonished by the court, and plead guilty to both counts of the complaint and admitted the prior strike conviction. The agreement provided that appellant’s maximum exposure was a sentence of seven years and four months, but that sentencing was otherwise open to the court. Before sentencing, appellant moved to stri ke the prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court denied the request, denied probation, and sentenced appellant to the aggravated term of six years in state4 prison for the offense charged in count 1 and a concurrent aggravated sentence of six years for that charged in count 2. The cour t imposed a restitution fine of $3,360, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 criminal convic tion fee. Credit was awarded for 175 days of
time served and 174 conduct credit. This timely appeal was filed on May 24, 2013.
DISCUSSION Where, as here, an appellant has pled guilty or no contest to an offense, the scope
of reviewable issues is restricted to matte rs based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings le ading to the plea; guilt or innocence are not included. ( People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895–896.) Nothing in the record suggests appellant was mentally incompetent to stand trial or
understand the admonitions he received from counsel and the court prior to entering his plea, and thereupon enter a knowing and voluntary plea. The admonition given appellant by the co urt at the time he entered his plea fully conformed to the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, and his subsequent waiv er of rights was knowing and voluntary. The presentence report prep ared by the probation depa rtment, including the police report it incorporates, establishes a factual basis for the plea.
The sentence conforms to the terms of th e plea agreement and is authorized by
law. Our independent review having revealed no arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment is affirmed.5 _ ____________ ____________ Kline, P.J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Richman, J.

_____________ ____________ Brick, J.*

* Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.