People v. Fordley CA4/1 ( 2015 )

Filed 1/13/15 P. v. Fordley CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065703
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD251846)
JOHN FREDRICK FORDLEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In December 2013, John Fredrick Fordley pleaded guilty to assault, being a
felon in possession of a firearm, making a criminal threat, attempting to dissuade a
witness, unlawfully taking a vehicle, evading an officer and burglary. At the
sentencing hearing, based on Fordley's request, the parties stipulated to modification of
the plea agreement to strike a provision to not prosecute another individual. In
accepting this modification, the court explained to Fordley that the District Attorney
could file charges against that individual, but there was no promise that charges would
be filed.
The trial court imposed a 10-year sentence, comprised of the middle term of six
years for the assault charge, plus one-third the middle term, or 8 months, consecutive,
for each of the other six counts. Fordley was awarded a total of 76 days credits,
comprised of 38 actual days and 38 days of Penal Code section 4019 credits.
(Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He was ordered to pay
victim restitution, in an amount to be determined, and ordered to pay certain fines and
fees.
In January 2014, Fordley sent a letter to the court, complaining, among other
things, that he was coerced into entering his plea and wanted to withdraw his plea.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, he listed as possible but not arguable
issues, whether (1) his notice of appeal should be liberally construed as to render his
challenges to his plea and judgment, as detailed in his letter to the court, cognizable on
appeal, (2) if so, was his waiver of his constitutional rights voluntary and knowing,
(3) did the court abuse its discretion in ordering a stipulated amount in victim
2
restitution, and (4) are his plea, sentence or restitution orders invalid as a result of
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Fordley filed a letter brief claiming (1) his attorney did things he did not want
her to do, including speaking to the codefendant and breaking attorney-client
confidentiality, (2) he was under duress and on medications when the court accepted
his guilty plea, and (3) the district attorney was biased against him and lied. Fordley
does not support his contentions with any argument or citations. Under People v.
Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential
error.
Generally, no appeal may be taken from a judgment of conviction on a plea of
guilty or no contest. (§ 1237.5; People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 41.) An
exception to this general rule exists where the defendant obtains a certificate of
probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subds. (a) & (b).) Fordley did not obtain a certificate of
probable cause and thus may not contest the validity of his plea. This includes his
claims that he was under duress and on medications when the court accepted his plea
and that the district attorney was biased against him and lied. Fordley's claim that his
attorney did things he did not want her to do challenges the effectiveness of his
counsel in representing him and are more appropriately raised by petition for writ of
habeas corpus. (People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 418-419.)
Following our independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably
arguable factual or legal issues exist. Competent counsel has represented Fordley on
this appeal.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
4