People v. Stewart-Lormer CA1/4 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/31/24 P. v. Stewart-Lormer CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A169472
v.
DANIELLE ANNA MARIE (Sonoma County Super. Ct.
Nos. SCR-757162-1,
STEWART-LORMER,
SCR-765370-1)
Defendant and Appellant.
Danielle Anna Marie Stewart-Lormer appeals from her combined
sentence of sixteen months in state prison. Stewart-Lormer’s appointed
counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende) summarizing the facts and procedural history, asking this court to
independently review the record to identify any issues warranting review.
Stewart-Lormer was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief but she
has failed to do so.
Finding no arguable issues on appeal, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2023, in Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCR-
757162-1, Stewart-Lormer entered a no contest plea to count 1 of the felony
1
complaint — second-degree commercial burglary — in violation of Penal Code
section 459.1 Stewart-Lormer was released pending sentencing. On May 12,
2023, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed
Stewart-Lormer on formal probation for a period of 24 months under the
following terms and conditions: that she participate in and complete mental
health and substance abuse programs as directed by the Adult Probation
Department; and other standard terms and conditions, fines, and fees. She
was given credit for time served and released.
On August 14, 2023, Stewart-Lormer was arrested after a dispatch call
indicated she was in possession of a firearm and talking to herself in an
agitated state. During the arrest, the officers had to use a 40mm less lethal
foam baton and K9 dog to take Stewart-Lormer into custody. During a
search of her person, the officers seized two knives and a plastic BB gun.
On August 18, 2023, in Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCR-
765370-1, the People filed a two-count felony complaint against Stewart-
Lormer, charging her in count 1 with carrying a dirk or dagger, in violation of
section 21310, a felony; and in count 2 with resisting arrest, in violation of
section 148, subdivision (a)(1), a misdemeanor.
On October 10, 2023, the trial court terminated the probation in Case
No. SCR-757162-1, as unsuccessful, revoked probation, and sentenced
Stewart-Lormer to a mitigated 16-month county jail state prison sentence
pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h).
On this same date, in Case No. SCR-765370-1, Stewart-Lormer entered
a plea of no contest to count 1 of the complaint, carrying a dirk or dagger in
violation of section 21310, a felony. On the plea agreement form executed by
Stewart-Lormer, it states that the custody period would be 16 months in
1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
state prison to run concurrent with the sentence in Case No. SCR-757162-1 of
16 months.2
Again, on this same date, the trial court in Case No. SCR-765370-1
sentenced Stewart-Lormer to a mitigated 16-month county jail state prison
sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), to run concurrently with
the sentence in Case No. SCR-757162-1. The trial court did not order a split
sentence under section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B). Instead, it sentenced
Stewart-Lormer to straight time with no mandatory supervision pursuant to
section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(A). The total aggregate term for both cases
was 16 months in state prison.
The trial court credited 231 days for time served and 230 days of
conduct credits in Case No. SCR-757162-1, for a total of 461 days, which left
nine days remaining to serve. In Case No. SCR-765370-1, the trial court
credited 58 days of time served and 58 days of conduct credits for a total of
116 days.
On December 20, 2023, Stewart-Lormer, in pro per, filed a timely notice
of appeal along with a request for a certificate of probable cause. In her
request for a certificate of probable cause, Stewart-Lormer indicated that her
release date should have been October 19, 2023, but that she was given a
consecutive release date of April 9, 2024. Stewart-Lormer argued that April
9, 2024, was not her understanding of the negotiated plea, and requested the
April 9, 2024, date be vacated. The certificate of probable cause was granted
by the trial court.
2 Appellant’s counsel for Stewart-Lormer interpreted the plea form as
16 months county jail and 16 months mandatory supervision upon release;
however, we think the correct interpretation is 16 months on the probation
violation to run concurrently.
3
On January 3, 2024, Stewart-Lormer filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the Sonoma County Superior Court, which raises the same concern
about her April 9, 2024, release date mentioned in the certificate of probable
cause filed with the notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Stewart-Lormer’s counsel filed a Wende brief on April 9, 2024. We have
received no supplemental filing by Stewart-Lormer. Stewart-Lormer’s notice
of appeal is from a final judgment after her no contest plea and is based on
the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea pursuant to
section 1237 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(B); the denial of a
motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5;3 the validity of the plea or
admission; and on the grounds set forth in her certificate of probable cause.
In addition, an order revoking probation is appealable as an order made after
judgment affecting the substantial rights of the party. (§ 1237, subd. (b);
People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 453, fn. 2.)
While conducting our independent review of the cases, we noted on
October 14, 2022, in Case No. SCR-757162-1, Stewart-Lormer failed to
appear for her court date and a bench warrant was issued for her arrest. On
October 26, 2022, Stewart-Lormer was returned on the bench warrant. At
this court date, Stewart-Lormer’s defense counsel declared a doubt as to her
mental competence to stand trial and she was referred for evaluation and a
report pursuant to section 1368 with the report due on November 28, 2022,
and a hearing on December 5, 2022.4 On April 3, 2023, Stewart-Lormer was
found mentally competent, and criminal proceedings were reinstated based
3 After a review of both dockets, we are unable to find any motion to
suppress that was filed in either of these cases.
4 There are no other docket entries in the record regarding the
section 1368 status until April 3, 2023.
4
on the section 1372 report. On this same date, Stewart-Lormer entered her
plea to count 1 of the felony complaint — second-degree commercial
burglary — in violation of section 459. There is nothing in the record to
suggest that Stewart-Lormer did not understand the proceedings at this
time; nor is there any mention of concern by defense counsel, the prosecution,
or the trial court. She responded to the trial court’s questions appropriately
and coherently, and the trial court found Stewart-Lormer’s plea and waivers
to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
On June 20, 2023, Stewart-Lormer’s probation in Case No. SCR-
757162-1 was modified. The modification was supported by the evidence and
without any indication of an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
After reviewing the entire record on appeal pursuant to Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436, we find no issues requiring further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HITE, J. *
We concur:
BROWN, P. J.
GOLDMAN, J.
People v. Stewart-Lormer (A169472)
* Judge of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San
Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.
5