Opinion
C082375
05-31-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW ROD KLINE, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CM041422)
Appointed counsel for defendant Matthew Rod Kline asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
On June 19, 2014, Butte County Sheriff's Deputies responded to a report of kidnapping and theft of firearms at the home of B. Jones, defendant's former girlfriend and the mother of his two children, 18-month-old A.K. and three-year-old E.K. Jones also had two children, four-year-old A.J. and nine-year-old E.J., who were not biologically related to defendant. Jones reported that defendant called her and stated he had taken the three youngest children in Jones's blue van to get food and play at the park and he would return them to her home in 10 minutes. Defendant provided conflicting information regarding his whereabouts. When he did not return the children within 10 minutes as promised, Jones began calling him repeatedly to no avail. Jones told deputies that defendant had mental health issues, had not been taking his medications, and had become increasingly paranoid over the past three days. She said defendant claimed to have recently joined the "New World Order" and the "New World Order" was trying to kill him and the two youngest children.
Deputies interviewed Jones's father. He reported that, after defendant took the children, he discovered his 12-guage shotgun, three rifles, some camping items, and ten gallons of gasoline were missing, along with two boxes of shotgun shells and an unknown amount of ammunition for the rifles. Deputies issued Amber Alerts for the children.
Late that night, deputies learned that defendant drove a blue van past the gate of the Department of Water Resources' (DWR) secure facility, rummaged through a DWR vehicle with one of the children in his arms, and took a safety vest and a pair of work boots. He eventually got back into the van and drove away, but not before a guard was able to record the license plate number, which confirmed the van belonged to Jones.
Deputies also learned that, earlier that afternoon, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) received a report that defendant had attempted to take a vehicle at a convenience store but was thwarted and left in a blue van. The CHP received another report that, earlier that day, defendant had showed up at a residence and asked to purchase a vehicle on the property so he "could get his children to the airport." When the property owner stated the vehicle was not for sale, defendant returned to a blue van and drove away.
While Jones was being interviewed by deputies, she received a telephone call from defendant. Deputies were eventually able to determine defendant's location and take him into custody. All three children were recovered unharmed. Defendant admitted he attempted to steal a vehicle at the convenience store, and that the boots and vest found during a search of the van were stolen by him from the DWR facility. Defendant also admitted he took firearms from Jones's father and hid them in some bushes on the property "for the safety of his children," but denied taking any ammunition. The guns were discovered during a search of the property.
On November 25, 2014, defendant was charged by amended information with abduction of a child to whom he had no right to custody, a felony (Pen. Code, § 278—count 1), misdemeanor grand theft of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(2)—count 2), attempted unlawful driving or taking a vehicle, a felony (Pen. Code, § 664; Veh. Code, § 10851—count 3), misdemeanor tampering with a vehicle or its contents (Veh. Code, § 10852—count 4), and three counts of misdemeanor child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)—counts 5, 6, and 7).
That same day, defendant entered a plea of no contest to counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 in exchange for dismissal with a Harvey waiver of the remaining counts. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea, as derived from the probation report.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (Harvey).
On December 24, 2014, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and, pursuant to defendant's Johnson waiver of 377 days of custody credits to which he was entitled, granted defendant four years of probation subject to terms and conditions including that defendant complete a six-month residential treatment program, with no time credited towards custody credits, and that he stay away from Jones's residence. The court issued an order pursuant to Penal Code section 136.2 prohibiting defendant from having any contact with Jones or her four children. The court also imposed fees and fines as recommended in the probation report at pages 35 through 39, paragraphs 1 through 32, modified as noted on the report, and found defendant had no ability to pay the recommended probation supervision and presentence investigation report fees.
People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050. --------
On March 9, 2015, the probation department filed a petition alleging defendant violated probation by terminating his participation in the residential drug treatment program without the permission of the probation officer or the court.
On March 23, 2015, the probation department filed a first amended petition to include an additional allegation that defendant violated probation by testing positive for methamphetamine. Defendant admitted the positive drug test allegation and the court continued probation, sentencing defendant to 90 days in county jail, stayed pending successful completion of the residential drug treatment program.
On April 30, 2015, the probation department filed a second petition alleging defendant violated probation by again terminating his participation in the residential drug treatment program without the permission of the probation officer or the court.
The probation department filed a third petition on October 28, 2015, alleging defendant violated probation by violating the protective order.
On October 29, 2015, defendant admitted the allegation in the April 30, 2015 petition. The court continued the hearing on the October 28, 2015, petition and referred the matter to probation.
On February 16, 2016, the probation department filed a fourth petition alleging defendant violated probation by terminating his participation in the residential drug treatment program without permission, and being terminated from his court-ordered child abuser's treatment program. The petition was amended on April 14, 2016, to allege defendant violated a protective order and failed to appear for court.
At the probation violation hearing on April 14, 2016, defendant admitted the allegation of being terminated from his court-ordered child abuser's treatment program in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations with a Harvey waiver.
On May 12, 2016, the court terminated probation as unsuccessful, sentenced defendant to the upper term of 18 months in county jail, and awarded him 140 days of presentence custody credit (70 actual days plus 70 days of conduct credits). The court imposed fees and fines as set forth in the supplemental probation report filed May 12, 2016.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel for defendant filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by his counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
RAYE, P. J. /S/_________
MAURO, J.