Opinion
A132448
10-21-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURTIS R. LECOMPTE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Napa County Super. Ct. No. CR150038)
Appellant, Curtis R. LeCompte, appeals from a judgment entered on his plea of no contest to a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), and admission of charged sentencing enhancements. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. As the appeal is based solely on grounds occurring after entry of the plea and does not challenge the validity of the plea, it is authorized. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).)
The Wende brief filed by counsel spells appellant's last name "LeCompte," as do many orders of the trial court, although the reporter's transcripts and several other documents in the record spell the name "Lecompte."
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
The facts, which we take from the probation report filed on June 14, 2011, are essentially as follows: On January 19, 2010, at about 12:55 p.m., an officer on patrol in American Canyon observed appellant walking away from a parked vehicle. After conducting a license plate check revealing that the vehicle had been stolen in Vallejo, the officer returned to the vehicle and yelled for appellant to halt. Appellant turned around, looked at the officer, and began running. Appellant was apprehended when he attempted to run through a perimeter the police had set up around the area. Appellant's jacket, which he dropped while running, was located and a key to the stolen vehicle was found inside. After appellant was read his Miranda rights, he falsely identified himself as Mark David Alvarez and said he was running away from people who were trying to kill him. He claimed he found the vehicle with the key in the ignition and the engine running and used it to evade those chasing him.
Due to his high heart rate, appellant was taken by the police to Queen of the Valley Hospital. After his California Identification Card was found inside his shoes, the police realized appellant had given them a false name and confronted him. Appellant then admitted that his name was Curtis Raymond LeCompte and also stated that he was on parole. After appellant was treated at the hospital and released, he was taken to the Napa County Department of Corrections, where he was booked.
The information filed on August 24, 2010, charged appellant with four counts: (1) a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle; (2) a felony violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a), receiving stolen property; (3) a misdemeanor violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1), resist, obstruct, delay of peace officer; and (4) a misdemeanor violation of section 602.5, the unauthorized entry of a dwelling. The information also alleged that appellant had been convicted of violations of sections 212.5 and 264.1, serious felonies within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivision (a) through (d), and 667, subdivision (b) through (i), and that he served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Appellant entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
On March 7, 2011, noting that appellant's file showed that he had been diagnosed and treated for chronic mental illnesses and may have ingested hallucinogenic drugs shortly before committing the charged acts, defense counsel asked the court to appoint and compensate a forensic psychologist to evaluate appellant and consult with counsel, and that any such orders be sealed. (See Evid. Code §§ 1012, and 1017.) The request was granted by an order that issued the same day. The forensic psychologist appointed by the court, Richard Geisler, Ph.D., prepared a psychological evaluation of appellant that was filed with the court on April 11, 2011, and made a part of the sealed record herein, which we have unsealed, reviewed and resealed.
On June 3, 2011, pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant entered a no contest plea to a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) and admitted that he suffered a prior serious felony (§ 1170.12, subds. (a) through (d)), and served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The remaining counts were dismissed.
On the same date, the court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years doubled pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), for a term of six years, plus one consecutive year pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court imposed a $200 restitution fund fine and ordered payment of a $40 court security fee and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. Appellant also received custody credits of 316 days and conduct credit of 158 days. (§ 4019.)
As appellant's Wende brief points out, the original abstract of judgment filed on June 14, 2011, showed the one-year enhancement was imposed pursuant to section 1170.12, but this was corrected in an amended minute order and an amended abstract of judgment filed on August 4, 2011.
--------
Appellant was not awarded custody credits from the date of his arrest because a felony parole warrant had been issued on December 31, 2009, based on various parole violations, for which his parole was revoked. His revocation release date was July 22, 2010, and he was awarded custody credits in the present case for time in detention after that date.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 23, 2011.
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, an appellant has pled not guilty or no contest to an offense, the scope of reviewable issues is restricted to matters based on constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings leading to the plea; guilt or innocence are not included. (People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 895-896.)
Nothing in the record before us, including the psychological evaluation earlier described, indicates appellant was mentally incompetent to stand trial or to understand the admonitions he received from the court prior to entering his plea, and to thereupon enter a knowing and voluntary plea.
The admonitions given appellant at the time he entered his plea fully conformed with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, and his waiver was knowing and voluntary.
The record provides a factual basis for the plea.
Appellant was at all times represented by competent counsel who protected his rights and interests.
The sentence imposed is authorized by law.
Our independent review having revealed no arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment of conviction, which includes the sentence imposed, is affirmed.
Kline, P.J.
We concur:
Haerle, J.
Lambden, J.