Court Opinion

ID: 9956837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 23:02:08.067728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.617474
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/2/24 P. v. Sanchez CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F086233
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. No. F20908574)
                    v.

    ALBERT SANCHEZ,                                                                       OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B.
Conklin, Judge.
         Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and DeSantos, J.
       Counsel for defendant Albert Sanchez submitted a brief pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking this court to conduct an independent review
of the record on appeal. Although we offered defendant the opportunity to present his
own brief by way of a letter, he has not responded.
       Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Consistent with our Supreme
Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the relevant facts and the
procedural history of this case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                             PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1
       Following a preliminary hearing, an information was filed on February 10, 2023,
charging defendant with second degree burglary of a structure (Pen. Code,2 §§ 459/460,
subd. (b), a felony; count 1), unlawful possession of body armor (§ 31360, subd. (a),
a felony; count 2), possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350,
subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 3), possession of an injection/ingestion device (Health &
Saf. Code, § 11364, a misdemeanor; count 4), and possession of burglar’s tools (§ 466,
a misdemeanor; count 5). The information further alleged defendant had prior
convictions, including a prior “strike” conviction. On February 17, 2023, defendant pled
not guilty to all five charges, and denied all allegations of enhancements and prior
convictions.
       On April 10, 2023, defendant completed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and
change of plea form. In court defendant then entered pleas of no contest to counts 1

1      Prior to the preliminary hearing in this matter, the court held a hearing pursuant to
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, at defendant’s request. After hearing defendant’s
concerns about his attorney’s performance and reviewing evidence presented by the
attorney contradicting representations made by defendant, the court denied defendant’s
request for a new attorney.
2      All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

                                             2.
and 2. The trial court accepted the plea and found it was “made knowingly, intelligently
and voluntarily,” and that it was supported by a factual basis pursuant to People v. West
(1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. Defendant further admitted a “strike” prior from 1997. The
remaining counts and allegations were then dismissed.
       On May 8, 2023, defendant was sentenced to the two year middle term for count 1,
and another two year middle term for count 2, which was ordered to be served
concurrently with the term for count 1.3 Referencing People v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, the court chose not to double the base term citing the age of the
prior “strike” conviction. Against defendant’s total prison term of two years, defendant
was credited with 485 days of custody and good time credits.
       Defendant filed a notice of appeal on May 8, 2023. Defendant did not ask the
court to grant him a certificate of probable cause.
                                FACTUAL SUMMARY4
       While patrolling a former boot camp located in Fresno County on October 8,
2020, a Fresno County Sheriff’s deputy spotted a couple of vehicles that caused some
concern, because the vehicles should not have been present on the property. A California
Highway Patrol (CHP) officer, who was partnered with the deputy as part of a task force,
testified that after approaching the second vehicle and engaging in some conversation
with defendant, a pat down search was conducted, as well as a consensual search of the
vehicle. During the vehicle search, evidence of heroin and drug paraphernalia was found,
including needles. Also found at this time was a broken padlock, a crowbar, bolt cutters,
other assorted tools, and Kevlar type panels. Surveillance video recorded on October 7,

3     At the hearing held on April 10, 2023, defendant also entered a no contest plea to a
misdemeanor charge in a separate case. That no contest plea was not addressed at the
May 8, 2023 sentencing hearing, and is not reflected on the abstract of judgment for this
case.
4      This factual summary is taken from the testimony provided at the preliminary
hearing held on February 3, 2023.

                                             3.
2020, at the facility and reviewed about a week later showed an individual wearing
similar clothing to that worn by defendant on October 7, using tools that looked like the
tools confiscated from defendant at the time of the search. The video also showed the
individual who looked like defendant assisting another person to break into the generator
room at the facility.
                                     DISCUSSION
       Having carefully reviewed the entire record provided in this case, we conclude
there are no arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–443.)
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                            4.