People v. Mosier CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/29/24 P. v. Mosier CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, C100342
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CF00915)
v.
CHAD NOLEN MOSIER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Chad Nolen Mosier asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing his trial
counsel was ineffective. We will affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
At around 1:50 a.m. on February 28, 2023, a police officer responded to an alarm
that went off at a local medical facility. The officer saw defendant leaving the building
1
and detained him. The officer searched defendant and found a bent piece of metal in his
jacket pocket. The officer noticed marks on one of the business’s doorframes, indicating
someone tried to pry or shimmy the lock. The marks on the door were consistent with the
piece of metal defendant had been carrying.
Defendant was charged with second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code,
§ 459—count 1)1 and felony vandalism with more than $400 of damage (§ 594, subd.
(a)—count 2).
On March 9, 2023, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency
to stand trial. (§ 1367 et seq.) The trial court suspended proceedings and appointed a
psychologist to examine defendant.
The psychologist opined in his May 2023 report that defendant was presently
mentally incompetent to stand trial. In June 2023, the trial court found defendant was not
competent to stand trial and referred the matter to Central Valley Conditional Release
Program for the purpose of recommending placement for treatment. The mental health
specialist for the program recommended referral to the California Department of State
Hospitals.
In July 2023, the trial court ordered defendant remanded to the California
Department of State Hospitals. Later that month, a psychiatrist from the California
Department of State Hospitals opined defendant was not yet competent to stand trial.
In October 2023, a psychologist from the Butte County Jail-Based Competency
Treatment program opined that defendant was competent to stand trial.
In November 2023, the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial and
reinstated criminal proceedings. That same day, defendant pled guilty to count 2. Count
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
1 was dismissed with a Harvey waiver.2 As part of his plea, defendant waived his right
to a jury trial regarding aggravating sentencing factors and agreed that the court could
find aggravating factors based on the probable cause declaration and police reports.
The following month, the trial court sentenced defendant to county jail for the
upper term of three years on count 2. The court explained it was imposing the upper term
because defendant had served prior prison terms, he was on supervised release at the time
of the current crimes, and his prior performance on supervised release and probation was
unsatisfactory. For similar reasons, the court further explained it was not imposing a split
sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5) because it was not in the interest of
justice to do so.
The trial court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40
court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee
(Gov. Code, § 70373), a $10 theft fine (§ 1202.5), and surcharges and assessments of $29
(§§ 1465.7, 1464; Gov. Code, §§ 70372, subd. (a), 76000, 76104.6, 76104.7). The court
also ordered $1,644.32 in victim restitution. (§ 1202.4, subd. (f).) The court awarded
565 days of custody credit (283 actual days and 282 conduct credit days).
Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause on appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the
opening brief.
2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 754.
3
Defendant filed a supplemental brief stating his trial counsel “had doubts. Her
very first words were ‘I have doubts,’ [and] this was before we even talked! I had never
met [trial counsel]! I never talked to [trial counsel]! She was prejudice[ed] towards me.
Why? That’s all.”
To the extent defendant is contending his counsel provided ineffective assistance
in declaring a doubt, we disagree. Given that the trial court proceeded to suspend
proceedings and appoint a psychologist to examine defendant, the court clearly (and
correctly) interpreted defense counsel’s statement as declaring a doubt as to defendant’s
capacity to stand trial pursuant to section 1386. Because two mental health professionals
proceeded to find defendant incompetent to stand trial between May and July 2023,
defendant cannot establish that his trial counsel’s representation was deficient.
(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688 [a defendant claiming
ineffective assistance of counsel must prove that trial counsel’s representation fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness and that defendant suffered prejudice as a
result].)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
4
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
EARL, P. J.
/S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
5