People v. Kraich CA1/3 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/19/14 P. v. Kraich 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
    A140365
    v.
    DANE FEL KRAICH,                                                     (Mendocino County
    Super. Ct. No. SCUKCRCR 12-20608-
    Defendant and Appellant.                                    2)
    Dane Fel Kraich appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea as a result of a
    negotiated disposition. His court-appointed 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 any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no
    issues requiring further review and affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    On the evening of Valentine’s Day 2012, following a day of drinking and an
    argument, Kraich shot his wife as she was leaving their home. She later escaped and
    went to a neighbor’s home. A sheriff’s deputy responded to the neighbors’ home, and
    saw that the left side of Kraich’s wife’s face and her left eye were swollen. There was
    blood on her neck and she had a bullet wound in her back. She was airlifted to the
    hospital and survived.
    1
    Kraich was charged by information with attempted murder (Pen. Code §§ 664,
    187, subd. (a)),1 inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), possession of a
    firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of ammunition by a felon (§
    30305, subd. (a)). The counts for attempted murder and corporal injury on a spouse were
    enhanced under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) for Kraich’s personal use of a firearm,
    and all counts were enhanced under section 667.5, subdivision (b) because Kraich had
    served a term in prison in Idaho within five years of commission of the charged offenses.
    After his initial plea of not guilty, Kraich reached an agreement with the
    prosecution to enter a guilty plea to one count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in
    violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a), enhanced for his personal use of a firearm and
    his infliction of great bodily injury as specified in section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and
    12022.7, subdivision (e), for a total prison term of 12 years. The remaining charges and
    special allegations were to be dismissed. Following the requisite admonitions and
    waivers of rights, Kraich entered a no contest plea to the agreed charge and admitted the
    enhancements. Kraich was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to the
    aggravated term of four years in prison for corporal injury on a spouse with a four year
    enhancement for his personal use of a firearm and another consecutive four year
    enhancement for his personal infliction of great bodily injury. Permissible fees and fines
    were imposed. The victim was awarded $7,458.43 in restitution and Kraich was given
    738 days of pre-sentence credit.
    His appeal was timely.
    DISCUSSION
    Based upon our review of the record, we have no reason to question the
    sufficiency of the court’s advisements, Kraich’s waivers or the explanation of the
    consequences of his plea. His plea appears to be free, knowing and voluntary. We have
    no reason to question the plea or the sentence imposed.
    1
    Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
    2
    Kraich’s counsel has represented that he advised Kraich of his intention to file a
    Wende brief in this case and of Kraich’s right to submit supplemental written argument
    on his own behalf. He has not done so. Kraich has also been advised of his right to
    request that counsel be relieved.
    There was no error. Our full review of the record reveals no issue that requires
    further briefing.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    _________________________
    Siggins, J.
    We concur:
    _________________________
    Pollak, Acting P.J.
    _________________________
    Jenkins, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A140365

Filed Date: 9/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021