Opinion
E074057
03-13-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOUGLAS SALEEM JONES, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
Michaela Dalton, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF1901864) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Emma C. Smith, Judge. Affirmed. Michaela Dalton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 1, 2019, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Douglas Saleem Jones, Jr., with assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count1), and inflicting corporal injury under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) (count 2).
On June 27, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion to replace counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118; the court denied defendant's motion.
On August 5, 2019, the trial court removed defendant from the courtroom because of his behavior. The court then declared a doubt as to defendant's competence to stand trial under section 1368. The court requested that doctors address defendant's competency issue. On August 8, 2019, the trial court appointed two doctors to evaluate defendant's mental competence. On September 10, 2019, the doctors filed their psychological evaluations. Both of them found defendant competent to stand trial. On September 12, 2019, after considering the doctor's written reports, the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial.
On September 25, 2019, prior to the preliminary hearing, defendant entered into a plea agreement. Defendant pled guilty to two counts of violating Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (counts 1 & 3), after the parties agreed to add count 3 as part of the plea agreement. As a factual basis for the plea, the trial court accepted the complaint and defendant's admission to the charges. The court then sentenced defendant to the low terms of two years for both counts 1 and 2, to be served concurrently.
On October 11, 2019, the trial court held a hearing under People v. Sanchez (2011) 53 Cal.4th 80. The court, however, rejected defendant's claim that counsel had been ineffective and denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
On November 1, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:
(1) "Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's Marsden motion?"
(2) "Did the trial court err in finding Appellant competent to stand trial?"
(3) "Whether the plea was not knowing and voluntary, for instance, because trial counsel was ineffective?"
(4) "Was there an adequate factual basis for the plea and did the trial court sufficiently inquire into whether a factual basis existed?"
(5) "Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to withdraw the plea?"
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error, and find no arguable issue for reversal on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. McKINSTER
J.