From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bessard

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Jul 29, 2008
No. A120710 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDMUND DON BESSARD, Defendant and Appellant. A120710 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division July 29, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 03-223264-3

RIVERA, J.

Edmund Don Bessard appeals from a judgment imposed upon his plea of no contest to a felony violation of infliction of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

On November 14, 2006, a complaint was filed charging defendant with two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)); one count of forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of disobeying a domestic relations court order with a prior conviction (§ 273.6, subd. (d)). The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant forcibly took the victim to his apartment and raped her. The victim had previously obtained a domestic violence restraining order against defendant.

On April 6, 2007, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and pled no contest to one count of infliction of corporal injury to a cohabitant. On October 17, 2007, after the sentencing hearing had been continued several times, the court granted defendant’s motion to substitute his retained counsel with a new attorney. On the same day, the new attorney filed a motion to set aside defendant’s no contest plea on the ground that it was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary. Defense counsel also argued that defendant’s prior counsel should have made a section 1368 motion.

On November 9, 2007, defense counsel moved to order a psychiatric evaluation of defendant pursuant to sections 1368 and 1369. On November 15, 2007, the court suspended criminal proceedings and referred defendant for a psychiatric evaluation.

On December 12, 2007, the court, upon reviewing the report from Dr. Martin Blinder finding defendant competent, reinstated criminal proceedings. The court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to the midterm of three years in state prison. The court awarded defendant 663 days of custody credits.

Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the sentencing. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: REARDON, Acting P. J., SEPULVEDA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Bessard

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
Jul 29, 2008
No. A120710 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Bessard

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDMUND DON BESSARD, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division

Date published: Jul 29, 2008

Citations

No. A120710 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2008)