People v. Matthews

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDERICK NEAL MATTHEWS…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Mar 18, 2020

B299606 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2020)

Opinion

B299606

03-18-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FREDERICK NEAL MATTHEWS, Defendant and Appellant.

ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA111672) THE COURT:

Defendant and appellant Frederick Neal Matthews (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a plea of no contest to charge of criminal threats. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On December 27, 2019, we notified defendant of his counsel's brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. We thus affirm the judgment.

Defendant was charged by felony complaint with one count of criminal threats, in violation of Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a).¹ The complaint alleged that defendant suffered a prior robbery conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (j), and 1170.12 (the Three Strikes law), and for purposes of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), the five-year recidivist enhancement. The complaint further alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for which he served prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

On May 8, 2019, defendant entered into a plea agreement in which he would enter a plea to the charge and admit the prior strike conviction in exchange for the middle term, doubled as a second strike. After defendant was informed of and waived his constitutional rights and understood the consequences of his plea, he pled no contest and admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. Defense counsel stipulated to the factual basis for the plea.² The trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed middle term of two years, doubled to four years as a second strike.³ The court imposed a $40 court operations assessment pursuant to section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), a $30 criminal conviction assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373, a $300 restitution fine, and a stayed $300 parole revocation restitution fine. Defendant was given 62 days of presentence custody credit, comprised of 31 actual days and 31 days of conduct credit. The remaining allegations of the complaint were dismissed pursuant to section 1385.

2 The probation report indicated that defendant threatened to kill a gas station clerk who refused to sell him alcohol.

3 See sections 1170, subdivision (h), 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), and 667.5, subdivision (c)(9).

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, which stated that the appeal was based upon the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that did not affect the validity of the plea. The notice of appeal also stated that the appeal would challenge the validity of the plea or admission. Defendant requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied.⁴

4 No appeal may be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of no contest unless the trial court has issued a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) A defendant who negotiated a specific sentence in return for his plea must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to challenge the agreed sentence on appeal. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76.) --------

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude that defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

The judgment is affirmed. /s/_________
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J. /s/_________
CHAVEZ, J. /s/_________
HOFFSTADT, J.