People v. Carter CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/23/24 P. v. Carter 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E082086
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI23000307)
CORNELIUS CARTER, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shannon L.
Faherty, Judge. Affirmed.
William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Cornelius Carter, Jr. was charged by information with
carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle by a felon (Pen. Code,1 § 25850, subds. (a), (c)(1),
count 1), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and unlawful
possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3).{CT 14-17} Pursuant to a plea
agreement, he pled no contest to all three counts. The court withheld pronouncement of
judgment and placed him on formal probation for 24 months under specified terms,
including that he serve 270 days in county jail or the work release program, with credit
for time served.{RT 18-23, CT 7-18} The probation department subsequently alleged
that defendant violated his probation, and the court revoked his probation and issued a
bench warrant.{CT 33} Defendant later admitted he violated his probation.{RT 26-27}
The court reinstated him on probation and ordered him to serve 270 days in county jail,
with credit for time served.{RT 26-27}
Defendant filed a notice of appeal.{CT 48} We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2023, defendant was charged by information with carrying a
loaded firearm in a vehicle by a felon (§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(1), count 1), possession of
a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and unlawful possession of
ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3).{CT 14-17}
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
indicated.
2
On April 4, 2023, defendant entered a plea agreement. Before accepting the plea,
the court confirmed with him that he initialed and signed the plea form and that he
understood he was pleading no contest to all three counts, in exchange for being placed
on probation for two years and serving 270 days in custody or work release. The court
noted he already had 112 days of custody credits (56 actual and 56 conduct) and stated he
could just do “the rest of it . . . on the weekend.”{RT 16} Defense counsel informed the
court they had discussed that defendant could “do the weekend work release Saturday
and Sunday or during the week or ankle monitoring,” and added, “That will be between
him and Glen Helen.”{RT 16} The court went over defendant’s rights with him, and
defendant waived them. The court confirmed that defendant had enough time to go over
the plea form with his attorney and understood his rights, potential defenses, penalties,
and future consequences. Defense counsel agreed and joined in the waivers. The court
read the charges in counts 1 through 3, and defendant orally entered a plea of no contest
to all counts; defense counsel joined, and the court accepted. The parties stipulated there
was a factual basis for the plea, and the court found that defendant knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea.{RT 14-20, CT 18-23}
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court suspended imposition of judgment and
placed defendant on probation for 24 months under specified terms and conditions,
including that he serve 270 days in county jail or the weekend work release program,
with credit for time served of 112 days. The court stated the weekends would start on
June 2, 2023 and ordered him to report to probation within 48 hours. His conditions
3
included the requirement that he report to Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center by
June 2.{RT 20-22, CT 21-23, 33}
On June 6, 2023, defendant appeared in court seeking to withdraw his plea. The
court appointed him counsel from the conflict panel to advise him. Defendant conferred
with counsel, who explained he had no legal basis to withdraw his plea. The court
accepted that representation and ordered defendant to report to probation that day.{RT
23-25}
On June 26, 2023, probation was revoked and a bench warrant was issued for
defendant’s arrest for his failure to report.{CT 33, 36-37} On July 8, defendant was
arrested on the warrant, and on July 10, the court indicated it was being alleged that
defendant was in violation of his probation. Defendant denied violating his probation,
and the court set a probation revocation hearing for July 13.{CT 25} The court then
continued the hearing to August 8, and referred the matter to the probation department for
a supplemental report and recommendation.{CT 27, 33}
On August 8, 2023, defendant waived his right to a revocation hearing and
admitted he violated his probation; his counsel joined. The court found defendant in
violation of his probation and reinstated him on probation, with the following
modification—that he serve 270 days in county jail, with credit for time served of 75
actual days plus 74 conduct credits.{RT 26-27}
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)
4
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court properly advised
defendant of his rights before accepting his admission of the violation of his probation
terms; and (2) whether the court erred by imposing a sentence of 270 days “straight
custody” or whether it was required to impose the sentence previously imposed.{AOB 7-
8} Counsel has also requested this court 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P.J.
MILLER
J.
5