From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Louder

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 3, 2008
No. B205190 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 3, 2008)

Opinion

B205190

9-3-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE LOUDER, Defendant and Appellant.

Julie Schumer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Not to be Published


On April 17, 2007, officers arrested Willie Lee Louder and a confederate after watching them sell cocaine to a confidential informant.

The confederate and codefendant James Henry Woods is not a party to this appeal.

On May 18, 2007, Louder was charged by information with one count of selling cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11352, subdivision (a). The information also alleged Louder had suffered three prior serious or violent felony convictions within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served six separate terms for a felony (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

At his arraignment, Louder appeared with counsel and asserted his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta) to represent himself. Before accepting Louders Faretta waiver, the trial court advised him of the consequences of his action, including the fact he was sacrificing any opportunity he might have had to allege on appeal his representation in posttrial proceedings was incompetent. After the court granted Louders request, he pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the special allegations.

On June 4, 2007, Louder relinquished his propria persona status and Mark Smith, a bar panel attorney, was appointed to represent him. On August 17, 2007, the trial court conducted in camera proceedings pursuant to Louders motion for production of documents under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) and Evidence Code section 1043, and ordered the disclosure of certain relevant material.

On September 26, 2007, Louder agreed to enter a negotiated plea and be sentenced to state prison on condition he serve his commitment at a state mental health facility. The record of the plea hearing shows Louder was advised of and waived his constitutional rights and was advised of and acknowledged he understood the consequences of his plea, including the fact he was to receive an aggregated state prison sentence of six years as a result of his plea. Louder further stated he was entering his plea knowingly, intelligently, freely and voluntarily. Additionally, the record shows Louder had the opportunity during the plea hearing to speak with attorney Smith about the plea agreement.

Louder pleaded no contest to one count of violating Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) and admitted the special allegations pursuant to the plea agreement. Attorney Smith joined in the waivers of Louders constitutional rights and stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea. The trial court found Louders waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing and intelligent.

Louders prior strike enhancements were dismissed in furtherance of justice under Penal Code section 1385, and he was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of six years, consisting of the three-year lower term for selling cocaine and a one-year term for each of three prior prison term enhancements. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court ordered that Louder be housed in a state mental health facility, specifically Atascadero State Hospital. The court expressly advised Louder it would recall the sentence if for some reason Louder could not be committed to Atascadero State Hospital. Louder received presentence custody credit of 243 days (163 actual days and 80 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Louder to pay a $20 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45.

The remaining three one-year prior prison term enhancements were apparently dismissed as part of the negotiated plea.

As reflected in the trial courts nunc pro tunc order dated May 8, 2008.

On November 20, 2007, Louder filed a notice of appeal, "based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea"; and "challeng[ing] the validity of the plea or admission." His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.

On December 19, 2007, the trial court recalled the sentence and commitment under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) because Atascadero State Hospital could not accommodate Louders need for substance abuse treatment. In resentencing Louder, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Louder on three years formal probation on condition he complete a three-year substance abuse treatment program at Los Angeles Transition Center, a lock-down facility. The court reimposed the previously imposed fines and fees. Louder was present with his counsel, attorney Smith, who informed the court that Louder understood and accepted the new sentence.

We appointed counsel to represent Louder on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no issues were raised.

On May 27, 2008, we advised Louder he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date. A criminal defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without a certificate of probable cause can only challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) Accordingly, because the notice of appeal shows Louder is contesting the validity of his sentence imposed as part of his plea agreement, he is, in substance, attacking the validity of his plea, and his notice of appeal is inoperable. (§ 1237.5; see People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 769-771; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79.)

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

JACKSON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Louder

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 3, 2008
No. B205190 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 3, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Louder

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE LOUDER, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Sep 3, 2008

Citations

No. B205190 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 3, 2008)