People v. Carter CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 23, 2024
• Docket: E082086
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 1/23/24 P. v. Carter 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082086

v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI23000307)

CORNELIUS CARTER, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shannon L.

Faherty, Judge. Affirmed.

William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Cornelius Carter, Jr. was charged by information with

carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle by a felon (Pen. Code,1 § 25850, subds. (a), (c)(1),

count 1), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and unlawful

possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3).{CT 14-17} Pursuant to a plea

agreement, he pled no contest to all three counts. The court withheld pronouncement of

judgment and placed him on formal probation for 24 months under specified terms,

including that he serve 270 days in county jail or the work release program, with credit

for time served.{RT 18-23, CT 7-18} The probation department subsequently alleged

that defendant violated his probation, and the court revoked his probation and issued a

bench warrant.{CT 33} Defendant later admitted he violated his probation.{RT 26-27}

The court reinstated him on probation and ordered him to serve 270 days in county jail,

with credit for time served.{RT 26-27}

Defendant filed a notice of appeal.{CT 48} We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2023, defendant was charged by information with carrying a

loaded firearm in a vehicle by a felon (§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(1), count 1), possession of

a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and unlawful possession of

ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3).{CT 14-17}

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

2 On April 4, 2023, defendant entered a plea agreement. Before accepting the plea,

the court confirmed with him that he initialed and signed the plea form and that he

understood he was pleading no contest to all three counts, in exchange for being placed

on probation for two years and serving 270 days in custody or work release. The court

noted he already had 112 days of custody credits (56 actual and 56 conduct) and stated he

could just do “the rest of it . . . on the weekend.”{RT 16} Defense counsel informed the

court they had discussed that defendant could “do the weekend work release Saturday

and Sunday or during the week or ankle monitoring,” and added, “That will be between

him and Glen Helen.”{RT 16} The court went over defendant’s rights with him, and

defendant waived them. The court confirmed that defendant had enough time to go over

the plea form with his attorney and understood his rights, potential defenses, penalties,

and future consequences. Defense counsel agreed and joined in the waivers. The court

read the charges in counts 1 through 3, and defendant orally entered a plea of no contest

to all counts; defense counsel joined, and the court accepted. The parties stipulated there

was a factual basis for the plea, and the court found that defendant knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea.{RT 14-20, CT 18-23}

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court suspended imposition of judgment and

placed defendant on probation for 24 months under specified terms and conditions,

including that he serve 270 days in county jail or the weekend work release program,

with credit for time served of 112 days. The court stated the weekends would start on

June 2, 2023 and ordered him to report to probation within 48 hours. His conditions

3 included the requirement that he report to Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center by

June 2.{RT 20-22, CT 21-23, 33}

On June 6, 2023, defendant appeared in court seeking to withdraw his plea. The

court appointed him counsel from the conflict panel to advise him. Defendant conferred

with counsel, who explained he had no legal basis to withdraw his plea. The court

accepted that representation and ordered defendant to report to probation that day.{RT

23-25}

On June 26, 2023, probation was revoked and a bench warrant was issued for

defendant’s arrest for his failure to report.{CT 33, 36-37} On July 8, defendant was

arrested on the warrant, and on July 10, the court indicated it was being alleged that

defendant was in violation of his probation. Defendant denied violating his probation,

and the court set a probation revocation hearing for July 13.{CT 25} The court then

continued the hearing to August 8, and referred the matter to the probation department for

a supplemental report and recommendation.{CT 27, 33}

On August 8, 2023, defendant waived his right to a revocation hearing and

admitted he violated his probation; his counsel joined. The court found defendant in

violation of his probation and reinstated him on probation, with the following

modification—that he serve 270 days in county jail, with credit for time served of 75

actual days plus 74 conduct credits.{RT 26-27}

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)

4 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of

the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court properly advised

defendant of his rights before accepting his admission of the violation of his probation

terms; and (2) whether the court erred by imposing a sentence of 270 days “straight

custody” or whether it was required to impose the sentence previously imposed.{AOB 7-

8} Counsel has also requested this court 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.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J. We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P.J.

MILLER J.