Opinion
G057810
02-07-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL EDWARD CUTTING, Defendant and Appellant.
Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17WF1146) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheryl L. Leininger, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
On May 23, 2017, Carl Cutting was charged with seven crimes, four of which were felonies and three of which were misdemeanors. On March 20, 2019, while represented by counsel, he reached a plea agreement with the prosecution that caused him to plead guilty to four of the filed charges (two felonies and two misdemeanors). Our record does not include any facts related to these charges other than those contained in the factual basis offered by Cutting to the court at the time he entered his guilty pleas. After the trial court accepted Cutting's guilty pleas, he was sentenced to sixteen months in the county jail and the remaining charges were dismissed. On May 20, 2019, Cutting filed his notice of appeal. In that notice, Cutting indicated his appeal "challenges the validity of the plea or admission." We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.
Appointed counsel has now filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. In that brief, while not arguing against his client, counsel has advised us he is unable to find an issue to argue on appellant's behalf. Counsel indicates in a declaration attached to his brief that an attorney from Appellate Defenders, Inc. has also reviewed the case. Finally, counsel informs us that appellant was instructed that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising any issues he felts should be brought to the court's attention. Cutting has not done so.
FACTS
On March 20, 2019, Cutting entered guilty pleas to four of the seven charges contained in the felony complaint that had been filed against him. As indicated by the Tahl form he executed at the time he entered his guilty pleas, Cutting pleaded guilty to count 1, a felony violation of Penal Code section 484i, subdivision (c), (Access Card Counterfeiting); count 3, a felony violation of section 476, (Possession of Fictitious Instruments); count 5, a misdemeanor violation of section 530.5, subdivision (c)(1), (Identity Theft—Retaining Possession with Intent to Defraud); and count 7, a misdemeanor violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), (Possession of a Controlled Substance). The only facts related to these charges contained in our record are found on page five, at line thirty-four, of his Tahl form. There the following is handwritten: "on 4/25/17 I unlawfully possessed card making equipment and access cards with intent to make counterfeit access cards; I also made/possessed altered checks with intent to defraud and attempted to pass the fictitious instruments; [¶] I also unlawfully acquired personal info of another for fraudulent purposes; [¶] I also possessed a usable quantity of amphetamines."
In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
DISCUSSION
Following the Wende guidelines, we have examined counsel's brief and the entire record in this case and, like counsel, have not found an arguable issue on appeal. We reach that conclusion keeping in mind the fact that counsel in his brief has directed our attention to two potential appellate issues: "1. Were Appellant's Credits Calculated Correctly?" and "2. Was Appellants (sic) Plea Made Knowingly and Voluntarily?"
As to the first issue, we find nothing in this record to demonstrate Cutting has been denied the benefit of any custody or conduct credits to which he is entitled. To the contrary, the record suggests that an agreed upon term of his negotiated plea was the fact that Cutting would receive no credits, either actual or conduct, against his sixteen-month sentence.
There are no credits of any kind noted on the Tahl form Cutting executed. The court specifically asked Cutting if he had read that form and discussed it with his attorney, and Cutting indicated that he had. There is no basis in this record for us to conclude that Cutting was ever promised any credits that he has since been denied.
As for the second issue—whether Cutting's guilty pleas were "knowingly and voluntarily" entered—this record provides no basis for us to conclude they were not. The trial court thoroughly, even exhaustively, discussed the terms of the negotiated plea with Cutting. As suggested above, the court also reviewed the Tahl form at length with him before he entered his guilty pleas. The court orally advised Cutting of the rights he confirmed he had already read for himself on the form and discussed with his lawyer. The court specifically informed Cutting what the consequence of his guilty pleas would be—a sentence of sixteen months in the county jail. Cutting specifically admitted that the factual basis set forth on the Tahl form was true. The court concluded by asking Cutting, "Do you understand everything going on here today?" Seemingly without hesitation, Cutting replied, "Yes." The court followed up by asking, "Any questions about anything?" Cutting responded, "No," before raising a question about restitution, which was quickly resolved. The court concluded by asking, "Any other questions?" Cutting replied, "No, ma'am."
Based on this record, we find no impropriety related to any aspect of Cutting's entry of his guilty pleas or his subsequent sentencing. Nor do we find any other potentially meritorious appellate issue.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
GOETHALS, J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. ARONSON, J.