People v. Thompson CA1/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Thompson CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. A168212
FRED THOMPSON, (Alameda County
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 21-CR-010327B)
Fred Thompson appealed after he was sentenced under a plea
agreement to two years’ probation in connection with theft from home-
improvement stores in Alameda County. His appellate attorney has asked
the court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We find no arguable issues but order that an
unauthorized $10 fine be stricken.
Thompson and another man were charged by felony complaint in
August 2021 with organized retail theft. A prosecutor represented that the
complaint was “just basically the Alameda jurisdiction” portion of an
“investigation . . . [in]to a large amount of theft over a large portion of
Northern California.” The complaint further alleged that Thompson had five
prior felony convictions.
1
Thompson in May 2023 pleaded no contest under a plea agreement to
one count of organized retail theft in concert (Pen. Code, § 490.4,
subd. (a)(1)).1 Thompson later admitted to the aggravating factor that the
crime involved great monetary value. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(9).)
Under the agreement, the prior-felony allegations, along with charges in a
separate case, were dismissed. Thompson waived his “right to appeal from
[his] conviction, including an appeal from the denial of any pretrial motions.”
He also agreed at his plea hearing to “a five-way search clause,” meaning he
must submit his person, residence, vehicle, property, and electronic devices to
search at any time.2
The trial court sentenced Thompson to two years’ probation and
imposed fines, including a $10 “theft fine” under section 1202.5, which was
stayed based on an inability to pay. But although section 1202.5 authorizes
the imposition of a $10 fine for various theft crimes, it has not been amended
since the enactment of section 490.4 and thus does not list it. We therefore
consider it appropriate to strike the fine as unauthorized since Thompson
was convicted of a crime not listed in section 1202.5. We find no other
arguable issues.
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 A different defense attorney represented Thompson at his sentencing
hearing. The new attorney argued that a search clause covering cell phones
is unconstitutional because it is overbroad and vague. The prosecutor and
the trial court noted that the search condition was being imposed on
Thompson because evidence had been found on his phone, and that
Thompson had agreed to the condition in any event. After Thompson first
appealed, he filed an amended notice of appeal requesting a certificate of
probable cause to challenge the electronics-search condition. The clerk of the
superior court has certified that the request was not properly before the court
and thus the court did not rule on it.
2
The order granting probation is affirmed, except the $10 fine ordered
pursuant to section 1202.5 shall be stricken.
3
_________________________
Humes, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Banke, J.
_________________________
Castro, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Alameda, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
People v. Thompson A168212
4