Opinion
E079099
11-21-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ALLEN NOBLES, Defendant and Appellant.
James Allen Nobles, in pro. per., and Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FMB22000115 Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
James Allen Nobles, in pro. per., and Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER J.
Defendant and appellant, James Allen Nobles, pled guilty to first degree burglary with a person present. (Pen. Code, § 459, count 1.) In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm of four years of imprisonment. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of facts, a statement of the case, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in sentencing defendant to the midterm; and (2) whether there are any other errors in the court's sentencing order.
Defendant was offered the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done. Defendant appears to contest the factual basis for his conviction and his state of mind when he entered the plea. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated that the police reports would provide the factual basis for the plea. We derive our factual recitation from the police reports.
On February 14, 2022, an officer was dispatched to a residence with respect to a physical altercation that had occurred there. The officer's partner informed him she had had prior negative contacts with defendant, who had been recently arrested. While in custody on that occasion, defendant made threats that once released he was going to return and kill those living at the residence.
The victim said that while he was sleeping, he woke to defendant punching him in the back of the head. Defendant was wearing fighting gloves and brass knuckles. Defendant struck the victim seven to eight times while he was lying in bed. The victim pushed defendant, stood up, and walked into the kitchen. The victim felt dizzy and sat on a chair. While seated, defendant punched the victim in the face approximately three more times.
The victim's left eye was swollen and purple. He had a swollen knot on the back of his head. He was covered with blood, which dripped from his nose onto the front of his shirt. The victim reported that he had prior "negative contacts" with defendant, whom he identified through social media photographs.
The officer interviewed defendant after his arrest. Defendant said he had heard of the victim but had never seen him in person. Defendant denied assaulting the victim. Defendant believed people staying at his mother's residence had stolen her property and killed her. Defendant said he has "had a hard time since his mother's death."
By felony complaint filed March 21, 2022, the People charged defendant with first degree burglary with a person present (§ 459, count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2). The People further alleged defendant had suffered one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
On March 29, 2022, pursuant to the negotiated plea, defendant pled guilty to first degree burglary with a person present (§ 459, count 1). The agreement provided that defendant would be sentenced to the midterm of four years of imprisonment, concurrent with a five-year term for a violation of parole in another case. In return, the court, on the People's motion, dismissed the other count and enhancements.
Defendant initialed a provision of a plea agreement reflecting that he was not then suffering from any condition that could interfere with his ability to understand his entry of the plea. Defendant signed the agreement reflecting, under penalty of perjury, that the provisions of the agreement were "true and correct." Defense counsel signed the agreement reflecting counsel had "personally read and explained the contents of the . . . Declaration to the Defendant; that [he] personally observed the Defendant sign said Declaration ...."
Defendant responded to inquiries from the court affirming that he had read, understood, and discussed the plea agreement with defense counsel prior to initialing each provision and signing the agreement. The court asked defendant if he was "under the influence of any substance affecting your ability to understand these proceedings?" Defendant responded, "No."
The court found defendant had read and understood the plea agreement, understood the nature of the crime charged against him and the consequences of the plea, understood and intelligently waived his constitutional rights, and that defendant's plea was free and voluntary. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to four years of imprisonment.
Defense counsel filed a notice of appeal on behalf of defendant challenging the validity of the plea. Defense counsel requested the issuance of a certificate of probable cause because defendant alleged he was not of sound mind when he pled guilty. Defendant alleged that "his mother had passed away a few days prior to his arrest and he was extremely distraught. He alleges that he was not sleeping and was seen in the medical facility of the detention facility. He was prescribed some sort of anti-depressant for his depression. He alleges that the medication, lack of sleep and the depression from his mother's death prevented him from thinking clearly. [¶] He alleges that had he been of clear and sound mind he would not have entered a plea and would have exercised his right to a jury trial." The court denied the request for a certificate of probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant does not actually make any express legal contentions. Instead, he recounts his version of events at the residence, which occurred over the weeks preceding his arrest, including his mother's death. This version of events would appear to implicitly challenge the factual basis for the plea and/or his state of mind when entering the plea. We affirm.
First, defendant's challenge to the evidence supporting his commission of the offense is estopped by his counsel's stipulation that the police report would provide the factual basis for the plea. (See People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 116-119.) Second, defendant's plea and admission, in and of themselves, constitute substantial evidence that he committed the offense to which he pled. (People v. McGuire (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 687, 697, fn. 12 [guilty plea concedes all elements of offense, establishing sufficiency of the evidence of guilt]; People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 304-305, fn. 6.) Third, defendant forfeited any challenge to the plea by failing to file a motion to withdraw it. (People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1412-1413.) Fourth, any challenge to the plea requires the issuance of a certificate of probable cause, which the court below denied. (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 678.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. FIELDS J.