People v. Hicks CA2/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/3/24 P. v. Hicks CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, B335462
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. YA107345)
v.
BRUCE WAYNE HICKS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________
Defendant Bruce Wayne Hicks appeals from his conviction
by plea of evading a police officer. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2.) His
appellate counsel found no arguable issues to raise on appeal
and filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende). After independently reviewing the record, we affirm the
judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
During a preliminary hearing, the following facts were
adduced. Defendant walked out of a supermarket with a
shopping cart full of groceries without paying for them. When
a store manager questioned him, defendant told the employee
to “back off or [he would] shoot” the employee. As defendant
spoke, he moved his hand “across [his] belt front to back,”
which indicated to the employee that defendant had a weapon.
Defendant got into a vehicle that did not have a license plate
and drove away. The employee called 911 and reported the
incident. After a police officer attempted to initiate a traffic stop
of defendant’s vehicle using his patrol car’s sirens and red lights,
defendant drove onto a freeway and drove his vehicle at speeds
more than 100 miles per hour. The pursuit ended about five
miles after it began when defendant stopped his car in the middle
of a freeway.
On April 5, 2023, the district attorney filed an information
charging defendant with one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),
and one count of evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2).
The information further alleged that defendant had a prior
strike conviction for robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(j),
1170.12.)
2
On August 7, 2023, defendant filed a petition for mental
health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 on the
ground that he suffers from a bipolar disorder and substance
use disorder. After a hearing held on September 11, 2023, the
court determined that defendant is not eligible for mental health
diversion and denied the petition.
Defendant and the district attorney thereafter entered
into a plea agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant
pleaded guilty to count 2—evading a peace officer—and admitted
the prior strike conviction. The court accepted the plea and found
defendant guilty of count 2.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced
defendant to prison for four years. The sentence was based upon
the middle term of two years (Pen. Code, § 18, subd. (a); Veh.
Code, § 2800, subd. (a)), which the court doubled as a result of the
prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).
Defendant received 480 days of combined actual custody and
good time credits. The court further ordered certain statutory
fines and assessments. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45,
subd. (a), 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1).)
Defendant filed a notice of appeal. His notice states that
the “appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring
after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.” (See Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
3
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, stating that counsel reviewed the entire
record on appeal and found no arguable issues to raise on
appeal. Counsel requested we independently review the record
to determine whether there are any arguable issues. Counsel
provided defendant with a copy of the Wende brief and the
transcripts of the record on appeal, and informed him of his
right to file a supplemental brief. On June 17, 2024, this court
also informed defendant that he may, within 30 days, “submit
a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal,
or contentions, or arguments which [he] wishes this court to
consider.” Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
We are satisfied that Hicks’s counsel has fully complied
with his responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441;
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 (Kelly).)
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues
on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:
BENDIX, J.
KELLEY, J.*
* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.
5