People v. Burton CA2/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/29/24 P. v. Burton CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, B334862
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA505338)
v.
MATTHEW LEE BURTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
On the morning of May 9, 2022, defendant and appellant
Matthew Lee Burton entered a convenience store, told the
security guard that he was armed with a handgun, and
demanded free liquor. Defendant left the store empty-handed,
but returned later that morning and repeated his demands.
When the clerk tried to rebuff him, defendant grabbed his
waistband and said “‘I’ll do it myself[.]’” He then walked behind
the cash register and loaded a grocery bag with liquor bottles and
other items. Defendant was arrested upon leaving the store.
In an amended information filed by the Los Angeles County
District Attorney’s Office, defendant was charged with two counts
of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and one count of attempted second
degree robbery (§§ 664, 211). The information also alleged that
defendant had a prior conviction for robbery, a serious and/or
violent felony.
Defendant’s pretrial counsel raised doubts as to his
competency, as defendant was a client of the Frank D.
Lanterman Regional Center (Regional Center). The trial court
suspended proceedings pending a competency assessment.
In February 2023, a psychologist evaluated defendant and
diagnosed him with, inter alia, a mild intellectual disability,
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, posttraumatic stress
disorder, and substance induced psychotic disorder due to daily
methamphetamine abuse. The psychologist determined that
defendant was competent, but recommended sending his case to a
Regional Center diversionary program (§ 1001.22)
The Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center (East Regional),
which oversaw defendant’s Regional Center services, informed
the trial court that it “[d]id not believe that [defendant] is
appropriate” for diversion. Defendant had a history of “defian[ce]
with staff” and “illegal and dangerous behaviors[,]” including
“br[inging] transients home to his [East Regional-provided]
apartment” and “br[eaking] into staffs’ cars to take money.”
Because of his “extensive history of maladaptive behaviors,
violent behaviors towards staff and the community, and
. . . unwillingness to accept voluntary services[,]” East Regional
was “unable to formulate a proposed diversion plan[.]”
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.
2
Following these developments, defendant pled no contest to
one count of assault by force (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and one count of
criminal threat (§ 422). He also admitted to the prior robbery
conviction, which constituted a prior “strike” under California’s
“Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, 1170.12). Defendant was sentenced
to a total of six years in state prison.
Following defendant’s notice of appeal, the trial court
granted a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant for this
appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and asked this court to
independently review the record to determine whether any
arguable issues exist.
On July 2, 2024, we informed defendant by letter that he
had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds for
appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. To date, we
have received no response from defendant.
We have independently examined the entire record on
appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
3
Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the
Wende procedure and our independent review of the record,
received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment
entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)
528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–
110.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
——————————————————————————————
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
4