From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Snowden

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
Aug 12, 2020
C090780 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2020)

Opinion

C090780

08-12-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS DAVID SNOWDEN, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 19CF02723)

Appointed counsel for defendant Nicholas David Snowden 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

Jane Doe #1 accepted a ride from defendant. He took her to a secluded area and told her she was going to "suck (him) up and fuck" him. When Doe #1 repeatedly refused, he grabbed her shirt, grabbed a knife, and punched her in the face. Doe #1 was terrified for her life. Defendant forced her to orally copulate him and he raped her. He then left her by the side of the road.

Approximately two weeks later, Jane Doe #2 was walking home when defendant approached her and offered to drive her home. He drove her to a wooded area and asked if she would "suck dick for money." When she refused, he grabbed her and threatened to stab and kill her if she did not orally copulate him. After unsuccessfully trying to force her to orally copulate him, he raped her and left her in the wooded area.

Almost two months later, Jane Doe #3 was hitchhiking and defendant offered her a ride. He took her to a field and demanded that she orally copulate him. She refused, but soon realized she was in danger and complied. She also complied with his demand for sex but he became angry. He threw her, tore her clothes, pushed her down, and inflicted pain. He sodomized her and left her in the field.

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)), one as to each victim, and admitted enhancement allegations that he used force and menace to have sex with the victims against their will and used a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)).

The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive upper terms of eight years on each count, plus one year for the deadly weapon enhancement. The remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. The trial court awarded defendant 196 days of presentence credit and imposed various fines and fees. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

II

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. (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. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/_________

MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
BLEASE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
HOCH, J.

People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.


Summaries of

People v. Snowden

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
Aug 12, 2020
C090780 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2020)
Case details for

People v. Snowden

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS DAVID SNOWDEN, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)

Date published: Aug 12, 2020

Citations

C090780 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2020)