People v. White CA2/5 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •  Filed 11/25/20 P. v. White CA2/5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FIVE
    THE PEOPLE,                                                   B302621
    Plaintiff and                                            (Los Angeles County
    Respondent,                                                   Super. Ct. No. TA147879)
    v.
    PAUL EDMUND WHITE,
    Defendant and
    Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Laura Walton, Judge. Affirmed.
    Maggie Shrout, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    __________________________
    In a complaint filed on January 9, 2019, defendant and
    appellant Paul Edmund White was charged with carrying a
    dirk (Pen. Code, § 21310 [count 1]) and possessing a
    controlled substance, methamphetamine (Health & Saf.
    Code, § 11377 [count 2]). The initial complaint charged
    White under the name of another individual, J.J., which
    name White had given as his own.
    At a hearing on January 9, 2019, White, again using
    the alias J.J., pleaded guilty in count 1. Count 2 was
    dismissed by plea agreement. White agreed to three years of
    formal probation and a six-month outpatient drug class
    during probation. The trial court properly advised White of
    his rights and the consequences of pleading guilty. The trial
    court also advised White that the plea was “open,” and “if he
    fails to appear or picks up any new cases” he could be
    sentenced to a maximum of three years in county jail.”
    White was released on his own recognizance and ordered to
    appear at the sentencing hearing on February 11, 2019.
    White failed to appear at the sentencing hearing, and
    the court ordered that a no bail bench warrant be issued,
    using the name J.J.
    White again failed to appear at a bench warrant
    hearing held on June 19, 2019. J.J., the individual whose
    name was used in the complaint and warrant, appeared and
    informed the court that White had used J.J.’s name as an
    alias. The court issued J.J. a judicial clearance and
    amended the complaint to reflect that White was the true
    2
    defendant. The court recalled the bench warrant and issued
    a new no bail bench warrant in White’s name.
    White appeared at a bench warrant hearing on
    September 5, 2019. He had again used J.J.’s name as an
    alias upon his arrest.
    At the sentencing hearing on September 19, 2019, the
    prosecutor noted that White had not appeared at the
    February 11, 2019 sentencing hearing and used an alias
    when arrested. The court had received a probation report
    pertaining to White, which detailed his extensive criminal
    history. The prosecutor noted that, had White given his true
    name, his maximum exposure would have been
    approximately 13 to 14 years in state prison. The court
    imposed the maximum sentence of three years in county jail,
    because White had failed to appear for probation and
    sentencing and, the court concluded, White had used a false
    name to hide his identity and true criminal history.
    White timely appealed.
    We appointed counsel. After reviewing the record,
    counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the
    record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , 441 (Wende). On July 22, 2020, we advised
    White that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or
    issues he wished us to consider. No response has been
    received to date.
    We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied
    no arguable issues exist and that White’s counsel has fully
    satisfied her responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v.
    3
    Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 279–284; Wende, supra, 25
    Cal.3d at p. 441.)
    MOOR, J.
    We concur:
    RUBIN, P. J.
    BAKER, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B302621

Filed Date: 11/25/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/25/2020