People v. Perkins CA4/2 ( 2016 )

Filed 2/8/16 P. v. Perkins 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E064250
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1501128)
MICHAEL PERKINS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone,
Judge. Affirmed.
Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Michael Perkins was charged by felony complaint with
battery on a nonprisoner by a prisoner (Pen. Code,1 § 4501.5, count 1) and possession
of a wireless communication device in a local correctional facility (§ 4575, subd. (a),
count 2). It was also alleged that defendant had three prior strike convictions.
(§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) On June 9, 2015, the court added
count 3, resisting an officer (§ 69), on motion by the People. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 3. The parties stipulated that the police
reports and felony complaint contained a factual basis for the plea. The court
dismissed the remaining counts and allegations. In accordance with the plea
agreement, the court sentenced defendant to eight months in state prison, consecutive
to any other sentence he was currently serving, with zero credits.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was an inmate at Oak Glen Conservation Camp. On March 1, 2015,
a correctional officer saw him talking on a cell phone, using a wireless headset device.
She ordered him to hand the device to her. Defendant put it in his mouth and quickly
proceeded toward her. The officer put her hands up to keep distance between herself
and defendant by pushing him in the chest. Defendant used his weight and strength to
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
push her back about three feet. He then ran outside to the back fence and threw the
headset device and cell phone over the fence.
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’s plea was
knowing and voluntary, and whether it can be challenged without a certificate of
probable cause; (2) whether there was a proper factual basis for the plea; and
(3) whether the sentence was authorized by law. 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.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4