From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hunt

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Apr 22, 2009
No. B210507 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARKHAM P. HUNT, Defendant and Appellant. B210507 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Second Division April 22, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BA324389

THE COURT:

Markham P. Hunt (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of no contest to one felony count of deterring an officer in violation of Penal Code section 69. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on terms and conditions of probation.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgment that she had been unable to find any arguable issues. On December 24, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

Because appellant pleaded no contest, we glean the facts of his case from the preliminary hearing. Officer Rodney Carter of the Los Angeles Police Department and his partner, Officer Amador, detained an individual in a strip mall during an investigation of fraudulent DVD sales. Three individuals, whom he identified as appellant and his two codefendants, approached the officers and demanded that the officers release the detained person. Officer Carter told them that he was a police officer, and he was wearing his badge around his neck. Appellant told Officer Carter that he did not care who he was, and that it was a Black Rider’s area. The three men surrounded Officer Carter and his partner. Appellant was in front and did most of the talking. He told Officer Carter that if he did not let the individual go he would “kick [his] ass” and throw a bottle at him. Officer Carter asked the men to back away but they did not comply. The three men backed away when Officer Carter called for assistance on his radio. They entered a vehicle and drove away but were detained. Officer Carter said that he and Officer Amador had to pay so much attention to the three men that they could not concentrate on the original investigation.

After the information was filed, the trial court told appellant at his first court appearance on September 17, 2007, that if he pleaded guilty to a felony and completed a series of anger management classes, the court would reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. At the taking of the plea, the court suspended imposition of sentence and told appellant that if he completed the classes and did not incur any other violations of law, he would receive a misdemeanor sentence of 32 months summary probation and a fine. The trial court ordered appellant to return to court on October 31, 2007, to show proof of enrollment in an anger management program. The court directed appellant to an office in the courthouse that would provide a list of programs, and the court advised appellant to inform the program provider of his limited income.

On November 20, 2007, the court stated for the record that appellant had not appeared, and it was his fourth or fifth opportunity to show proof of compliance. The court issued a no-bail warrant. On January 7, 2008, the prosecutor informed the court that he had received a letter from the anger management program stating that appellant had enrolled but “got kicked out.” The court issued another bench warrant. On July 8, 2008, appellant appeared with counsel. The court stated that appellant had multiple cases pending and there was a second warrant for appellant relating to a domestic violence issue. The court ordered a supplemental probation report.

On August 12, 2008, appellant appeared for sentencing before a different judge and an Arbuckle waiver was taken. The parties stipulated to the July 2008 report as the sentencing report. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on felony probation for three years under terms and conditions that included a jail sentence equivalent to the time appellant had already served. The trial court terminated probation on appellant’s three pending misdemeanor cases.

People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 (Arbuckle).

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Hunt

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division
Apr 22, 2009
No. B210507 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Hunt

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARKHAM P. HUNT, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Apr 22, 2009

Citations

No. B210507 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2009)