Opinion
C077220 C078329
03-23-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN NELCE LANCASTER, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 72005780)
Appointed counsel for defendant Jonathan Nelce Lancaster has filed an opening brief in these consolidated cases, setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Defendant appeals from his probation violation (case No. C077220), the trial court's denial of his motion to recall his sentence (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)), and two additional postsentencing orders by the trial court (case No. C078329).
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant was originally convicted of stalking in violation of a restraining order (§ 646.9, subd. (b)), perjury by declaration (§ 118), and seven misdemeanor counts of disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). On November 2, 2009, the trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive 180-day terms on two of the misdemeanor counts, imposed a four-year state prison term with suspended execution as to the felony counts, and placed defendant on five years of formal probation.
On April 29, 2013, the Placer County District Attorney first filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation. The third amended petition, filed on December 16, 2013, alleged defendant: engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6125); failed to attend an anger management program as directed by probation; failed to report to probation as directed on April 17, 2013; was terminated from an employment program for unexcused absences; failed to complete a mental health assessment as directed by probation; failed to report to revenue services between April 16, 2013 and April 26, 2013; failed to provide probation with his computer password to facilitate a search; and requested a restraining order against the victim of the case on October 21, 2013, and November 7, 2013. All these actions by defendant were alleged violations of probation.
The trial court denied defendant's (first) motion made pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 on June 24, 2013, and denied a second such motion on September 30, 2013. The trial court then granted counsel's request to be relieved. Defendant filed a request for appointment of specific counsel, which was denied on October 21, 2013.
On May 30, 2014, defendant filed a third Marsden motion, and on June 16, 2014, filed a motion in propria persona to recuse the entire Placer County Superior Court. The trial court struck defendant's recusal motion on June 17, 2014, and denied the Marsden motion on June 24, 2014. On July 25, 2014, the trial court denied a fourth Marsden motion. The court also denied defendant's motion for self-representation (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 ) on the ground that defendant's persistent disruptive behavior forfeited his right to represent himself. Defendant filed another recusal motion and his fifth Marsden motion on August 12, 2014; the trial court denied both the same day.
Up to the denial of his Faretta motion, defendant had, at various times, answered the trial court's questions by raising matters unrelated to the question, interrupted the court, filed motions and made statements in court raising unfounded accusations that the trial court, the Placer County Superior Court, contract defense counsel, and the prosecution had conspired to provide ineffective assistance of appointed criminal defense counsel. He also accused the court and other Placer County Superior Court judges of criminal behavior, made profane comments in court, repeatedly insulted the court, was subjected to vexatious litigant proceedings in civil court, and argued with the court, even telling the judge "fuck you." --------
Among defendant's probation conditions were that he obey all laws, report to probation as directed, enter into rehabilitation programs as directed by the probation officer and not terminate any program without the officer's consent, and not to harass or contact the victim, Linda V.
On March 8, 2013, probation officers directed defendant to attend the Job Seekers program, anger management counseling, and undergo a mental health assessment. Defendant signed a memo directing him to enroll in the anger management program before May 24, 2013, and attend a Job Seekers class on April 3, 2013. Defendant told the officers he did not want to attend either program. He was ultimately terminated from the Job Seekers program for missing half of his classes.
On March 11, 2013, defendant's probation officer mailed him a notice directing him to attend the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) assessment scheduled for March 13, 2013. At his first meeting with DHHS, defendant indicated that he did not want to participate. He refused to participate or sign the necessary paperwork at the second meeting. On the day of the third scheduled meeting, defendant reaffirmed his unwillingness to participate and declined to attend.
On April 17, 2013, defendant phoned the probation officer at 8:30 a.m. and said he was next door at the courthouse but would be unable to make the 8:15 a.m. scheduled meeting. He did not attend the meeting. Defendant also failed to report to probation as scheduled on April 24, 2013. He also failed to provide, as directed, proof of attending the anger management counseling program.
Regarding the allegations of unauthorized practice of law, the evidence showed that defendant met another Placer County criminal defendant, David Oliver, at the county jail on April 1 and 6, 2013. During recorded conversations, defendant and Oliver, who was representing himself at the time, discussed defendant preparing motions for Oliver, the possibility of Oliver getting bail based on the number of outstanding arrest warrants, defendant's assertion that his and Oliver's convictions could be overturned based on systematic ineffective assistance of counsel that had taken place since 2006, how defendant was Oliver's voice in federal court for cases Oliver had filed there, and how to obtain private, non-contract counsel through habeas corpus petition.
The trial court took judicial notice of civil actions filed by defendant against Linda V., as specified in the third amended petition, and three criminal cases against defendant Oliver filed in Placer County Superior Court.
The trial court found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations regarding reporting to revenue services and providing the computer password, and sustained the remaining allegations. On August 18, 2014, the court executed the four-year state prison term and awarded 117 days of presentence credit (79 actual and 38 conduct). Defendant appealed.
Postsentencing, defendant filed a variety of in propria persona motions, including an "Ex-Parte Motion for Amended Abstract of Judgment to Include Conduct Credits," seeking custody credit for the time he had spent on probation, denied on November 14, 2014; an "Ex Parte Motion for the Disposition of Fines," seeking to convert $200 of his fees to days in prison, denied on November 26, 2014; and a motion to recall his sentence (§ 1170, subd. (d)), containing a myriad of allegations of error, conspiracy, and civil rights violations, denied on December 24, 2014. As to each of these three denials, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
In response to a February 6, 2015 letter from appellate counsel, the trial court increased the award of presentence credits to 164 days.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of the filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and although defendant has applied for and received three separate extensions of time to file a supplemental brief, extending the due date from March 23, 2016 to December 19, 2016, we have received no brief from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Renner, J.