Opinion
C089226
04-22-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUCAS EDWARD STATZER, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15F6698)
Appointed counsel for defendant Lucas Edward Statzer filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks 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).) Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The People's February 26, 2016 information alleged that on or around October 15, 2015, defendant was a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts I & II) and a felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count III). Defendant's section 1538.5 motion to suppress challenging, in pertinent part, the length of his traffic stop was denied following an evidentiary hearing.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On August 16, 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to count III in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts, no more than six months in county jail, and three years' probation, including a condition that defendant not engage in hunting. Defendant was promised the opportunity to reduce this conviction to a misdemeanor after 18 months and waived his rights to appeal.
The basis for defendant's plea was that "on October 15th, the defendant was in a vehicle and there was a firearm, ammunition in the vehicle and . . . at that time he was still a convicted felon." The defense reiterated defendant's dissatisfaction with his traffic stop, but agreed "there is a sufficient factual basis" for the plea. Defendant's prior felony conviction had been reduced to a misdemeanor before entry of this plea.
Approximately six weeks later, defense counsel informed the court of defendant's desire to terminate his privately retained counsel and withdraw his plea premised upon counsel's alleged failure to explain certain aspects of the deal to him. The court acknowledged defendant's desire to have new counsel appointed. Arleen Russo eventually was appointed to represent defendant to research whether there was a basis to withdraw his plea.
Following that investigation, Russo advised the court that she saw no basis to withdraw the plea and asked to be relieved. In light of this, defendant requested a continuance to allow him to obtain a new attorney. Russo, the court, and defendant discussed defendant's dissatisfaction with his plea and Russo's evaluation of the evidence concerning that plea. Thereafter, over the People's objection, the court continued the matter another three weeks to allow defendant the opportunity to consult with another attorney. However, the court made clear that Russo would be his attorney unless defendant obtained a new one, and barring that occurrence, he would be sentenced at the next hearing.
Defendant did not retain new counsel and was sentenced to three years' probation with 90 days in county jail with credit for one day. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $25 administrative screening fee (§ 1463.07). The court also imposed a $300 base fine (§ 30305, subd. (a)(2)) and the following penalty assessments amounts on that fine: $300 (§ 1464), $75 (Gov. Code, § 76101), $15 (Gov. Code, § 76102), $60 (§ 1465.7), $150 (Gov. Code, § 70372), and $150 (Gov. Code, §§ 76104.6, 76104.7).
Defendant appealed after receiving a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests that this court 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 his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
KRAUSE, J. We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. DUARTE, J.