Court Opinion

ID: 9377145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 00:02:11.72525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:12.187123
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/6/23 P. v. Ratliff CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079508

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF2103962)

 JAMES LEON RATLIFF,                                                     OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Stephen M. Vasil, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                    INTRODUCTION

       Defendant and appellant James Leon Ratliff was charged by amended felony

complaint with various sex offenses. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to all

counts as charged in exchange for a sentence of 13 years four months, plus 15 years to

life. The court found a factual basis for the plea and sentenced him to the agreed-upon

term, with credit for time served of 194 days of presentence custody credits and 29 days

of conduct credit.1

       Defendant filed a notice of appeal, based on the sentence or other matters

occurring after the plea. We affirm.

                            PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On October 7, 2021, defendant was charged by felony amended complaint with

engaging in sexual acts with a person 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code,2 § 288.7, subd.

(b), count 1), committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under the age of 14 by

use of force (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), count 2), committing a lewd and lascivious act on a

child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a), count 3), and causing or permitting a child to

suffer physical pain and mental suffering (§ 273a, subd. (a), count 4). The complaint also

       1 In adding the days of credit for actual time and conduct credit, the trial court
erred and found that the total was 233 days. However, the minute order and abstract of
judgment correctly list the credit total as 223 days.

       2 All further statutory references will be the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
                                             2
alleged that defendant committed a qualifying sex offense against more than one victim.

(§ 667.61, subd. (e)(4).)

       On December 10, 2021, defendant pled not guilty to all charges.

       On March 20, 2022, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea

agreement. Before accepting the plea, the court asked him if he had a chance to go over

the plea form with his attorney, and he confirmed that he did. The plea form contained a

waiver of defendant’s right to appeal. The court asked if he understood everything on it,

and defendant confirmed that he did. Defendant said he had no questions for the court

about anything on the plea form. He also confirmed that he initialed and signed the plea

form and that he understood he was pleading guilty to all four counts. The court went

over the sentence he would receive under the plea agreement, and defendant confirmed

he understood and did not have any questions about anything they discussed. The court

read the charges in counts 1 through 4, and defendant orally entered a plea of guilty to all

counts; defense counsel joined, and the court accepted. The court then asked defendant if

he understood all the conduct it just read to him and if it was true that it happened.

Defendant confirmed, and the court found a factual basis for the plea, based on

defendant’s admission. The court found that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily waived his constitutional rights, understood the charges and consequences of

his plea, and that he freely and voluntarily pled guilty. The court ordered the plea form to

be filed.

                                              3
       On June 1, 2022, the court sentenced defendant, pursuant to the agreement, to 15

years to life on count 1, the upper term of 10 years on count 2, two years on count 3 (one-

third the midterm), and one year four months on count 4 (one third the midterm), for a

total determinate term of 13 years four months, and an indeterminate term of 15 years to

life. The court awarded 194 days of custody credits and 29 days of conduct credit.

                                       DISCUSSION

       Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether defendant executed a valid

waiver of his appellate rights; (2) whether he needed to obtain a certificate of probable

cause to raise an appellate challenge to his negotiated sentence; (3) whether the court

adequately established a factual basis for the guilty plea; and (4) whether defendant

knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights. Counsel has also requested

this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

       We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done.

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

                                              4
                                 DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                               FIELDS
                                                        J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

MENETREZ
                       J.

                                      5