Opinion
A152424
02-02-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAHIM MUHAMMAD, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. 217571)
Appellant Rahim Muhammad appeals from a judgment, based on a plea of no contest, convicting him of the felony offense of stalking. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b).) His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no legal issues and asking this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has advised appellant at his last known address that a Wende brief would be filed and he may personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wishes to call to the court's attention, but appellant has filed no such brief.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
We take the facts from the presentence report submitted by the Solano County Probation Department to the court on October 13, 2017.
On January 19, 2013, the victim, R.V., informed Vallejo police that she heard someone pounding on her front door she recognized as appellant, who she had hired in 2011 to help landscape her home. A friendship developed between them, but after appellant realized it was not going to be physical he began to harass her. In 2012, R.V. obtained a restraining order, and had to call the police on four occasions for his violations of the order. Appellant began calling R.V. repeatedly while she was at work and aggressively threatened her for calling the police after he broke the windshield of her car. Appellant also directed R.V. to send a letter to the police claiming she erred in identifying him as the perpetrator, stating there would be consequences if she failed to comply, and made reference to guns, which made R.V. fearful for her life because she knew he had been in trouble in the past due to the use of firearms. R.V. told the police the restraining order was ineffective because appellant knew where she lived and was employed. Although she changed her phone number three times, appellant managed to find the new one each time, and continued harassing her for more than a year.
On February 3, 2013, R.V. reported to police that appellant had called her six times that morning and then came to her house in an angry mood. At that time, a no bail warrant for appellant's arrest had issued. Eleven days later, on February 14, R.V. informed police that she had received nine phone calls from appellant using a "private number" and on one of the two calls she answered, he told her he was on his way to her house. On a previous occasion when appellant came to her house, he broke all of its windows. At that time, a no bail warrant for appellant's arrest had issued. R.V. told the police appellant was homeless and she did not know his phone number.
Ten days later, on February 24, R.V. told the police appellant had that day called and texted her 34 times. She also again told officers that she had changed her phone number multiple times but appellant was still able to find her new number.
On April 12, 2013, the Solano County District Attorney filed a complaint charging appellant with felony stalking in violation of section 646.9 subdivision (b) and two counts of criminal threats in violation of section 422 with an enhancement for a prison prior. (§ 667.5.) The complaint also charged nine counts of misdemeanor violation of section 273.6, subdivision (a), disobeying a restraining order.
Appellant failed to appear as ordered and a bench warrant issued and the order setting a jury trial was vacated.
The police were unable to apprehend appellant for about four years until, on February 18, 2017, he was flagged by customs officers at Los Angeles International Airport and arrested by airport police.
At a preliminary hearing on May 6, 2014, appellant was held to answer on all charged counts.
Three days later, the district attorney filed an information charging appellant as in the complaint, but adding additional felony counts charging dissuasion of a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), and criminal threats (§ 422).
On April 14, 2017, after reaching a negotiated disposition with the district attorney, appellant executed a written waiver of his constitutional rights and declaration in support of his motion to change his plea. Appellant was informed of his constitutional rights by the court and waived them, and changed his plea of no contest to felony stalking (count 1) and misdemeanor violation of a restraining order (count 4). The district attorney then dismissed all other charges and all of the alleged enhancements.
On May 30, 2017, the court granted appellant's request to proceed in propria persona. On August 29 and August 31, 2017, appellant filed successive motions to set aside the information under section 995, followed by a "nonstatutory motion to dismiss" filed on September 1.
On September 6, 2017, the trial court denied appellant's section 995 motions as untimely, entered judgment and sentenced appellant to the low term of two years in prison for stalking, with a one-year concurrent sentence for violating a restraining order.
Appellant's timely notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 2017.
DISCUSSION
The scope of reviewable issues on appeal after a plea of guilty or no contest 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.)
Appellant's change of plea complied with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
There was a factual basis for the plea. Appellant was at all times represented by competent counsel who zealously protected his rights and interests. The sentence imposed is authorized by law.
Our independent review having found no arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment, including the disposition, is affirmed.
/s/_________
Kline, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Richman, J. /s/_________
Miller, J.