People v. Trood CA1/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/4/24 P. v. Trood 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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,
A169672
v.
PHILIP ALDEN TROOD, (Napa County
Super. Ct. No. 22CR002847)
Defendant and Appellant.
Philip Alden Trood appealed after he was sentenced to probation for
cutting down a tree on city property. His appellate attorney has asked the
court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436, and Trood has filed a supplemental brief. We find no arguable
issues and affirm.
Trood was arrested in November 2022 and charged with felony
vandalism and grand theft after reports that he had cut down a tree in a
Napa city park where he had been living in a homeless encampment for
around 10 years. Around 10 months later, in September 2023, Trood pleaded
no contest to one misdemeanor count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,
§ 496, subd. (a)).1 Under his plea agreement, he was to receive one year of
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
specified.
1
formal probation. He also was to agree to move his personal belongings out of
the park where he cut down the tree, to stop living in the park (or within 100
yards of it), and to stay away from the park from dusk until dawn.
On the day in early November 2023 set for sentencing, Trood’s counsel
informed the trial court that Trood wanted to withdraw his plea. The trial
court continued the matter so that counsel could file a formal motion, which
counsel did later that month. Attached to the motion was a statement from
Trood describing a project he was working on at the park with other
residents. According to Trood, the district attorney was trying “to oppress me
to freely travel,” and he could not follow the conditions set forth in his plea
agreement since they would “restrain [his] movement around [his] old home,
prevent [him] from continuing [his] relationship with neighbors and limit[]
[his] actions in and around Kennedy Park, [which was] ridicul[ous,]
unreasonable and unacceptable.” Trood also attested that he did not want to
admit to receiving stolen property because, as he stated, “I am not a thief.”
He further attested that he was “a professional at tree care with over fifty
years’ experience” and that the tree he cut down was dead when he removed
it. He requested that all charges be dismissed or, in the alternative, that he
be allowed to receive new counsel and proceed to trial.
At the start of the hearing on the motion to withdraw and for
sentencing, Trood stated that he wanted to fire his appointed attorney, and
the court held a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The
court denied the motion. In open court, Trood tried to present documents to
the court, but his attorney stated that the documents might suggest
ineffective assistance of counsel and also that the documents should not be
2
disclosed to the prosecution in the event there was a trial. The court held
another Marsden hearing, and the court again ruled against Trood.2
The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea for lack of good
cause shown. It then sentenced Trood under his plea agreement to one year
of formal probation, subject to the agreed upon conditions set forth above.
The court imposed two fees (Gov. Code, § 70373; § 1465.8) and the minimum
restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and it waived further restitution subject
to Trood’s successful completion of probation. Trood sought and was granted
a certificate of probable cause to challenge the denial of his motion to
withdraw his plea.
Reviewing the record of Trood’s sentence and other matters occurring
after Trood’s plea that do not affect the validity of the plea (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(B)), we find no arguable issues, as the sentence and
fine and fees imposed were authorized. And we find no reason to reverse the
denial of Trood’s motion to set aside his plea, as the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that Trood did not establish good cause.
(§ 1018; People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 894.) Trood was
represented by counsel throughout the proceedings below, and there is no
indication in the record that he lacked understanding of the effects of his
plea. Trood’s lengthy supplemental brief in this court includes much of the
same information submitted in support of his motion to withdraw his plea,
and it also summarizes material outside the record that he contends shows
he would have prevailed at trial. The brief does not, however, raise an
arguable issue that good cause supported the withdrawal of his plea.
2 In his supplemental brief, Trood argues that his motions should have
been granted, but he does raise an arguable issue that the trial court abused
its discretion.
3
Trood also complains in his supplemental brief that the probation
conditions limiting his access to the park where he was living amount to cruel
and unusual punishment. Since Trood was sentenced, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) ___ U.S. ___ [144 S.Ct.
2202], which weighs against any challenge to the conditions of Trood’s
probation. There are no arguable issues to argue on appeal.3
The order granting probation is affirmed.
3 Through inadvertence, a different version of this opinion was posted
to the court’s website before it was filed. Both versions reach the same
conclusion.
4
_________________________
Humes, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Banke, J.
_________________________
Hill, J.*
*Judge of the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
People v. Trood A169672
5