From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Patterson

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Apr 30, 2009
No. D054208 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES THOMAS PATTERSON, Defendant and Appellant. D054208 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division April 30, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCS205684, William H. McAdam, Judge.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

Charles Thomas Patterson entered guilty pleas to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), one count of burglary (§ 459) and one count of evading a peace officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). In connection with the robbery count, Patterson admitted that he used a deadly weapon, a club, within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). Patterson also admitted that he had a prior prison term conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), four prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and nine prior serious/violent felony or strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). After dismissing the nine strike allegations, the trial court sentenced Patterson to 25 years in prison, as the court said it would when Patterson pleaded guilty to the face of the second amended complaint.

Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

The court denied Patterson's request for a certificate of probable cause.

FACTS

On October 9, 2006, a little after 5:00 a.m., Patterson entered a 7-11 store on Broadway in Chula Vista with a T-shirt covering his face and holding a two-foot-long stick covered by a towel. Thinking the individual was suspicious, Carlos Rodriguez, the assistant manager, immediately left the store and called 911, using a pay telephone outside. While Rodriguez was at the pay telephone, Patterson came out of the store and told Rodriguez to return to the store. Rodriguez ran across the street. Patterson started to follow Rodriguez, but stopped and went back to the store, where he banged the cash register on the floor several times before leaving with the cash register. Patterson proceeded to a vehicle and drove off. Rodriguez was able to write down the license plate number of the vehicle.

Rodriguez encountered Officer Matthew Davison, who had been dispatched to the 7-ll store, and told him he had just been robbed and the robber was in a red car; Davison pursued Patterson in his marked police vehicle. Patterson was speeding in a residential area and went through a stop sign. With Patterson's vehicle going 60 miles per hour, Davison turned on his overhead lights and siren. Patterson's vehicle reached speeds as high as 100 miles per hour and ran through four or five red lights or stop signs. Just as Patterson entered National City, Davison's vehicle was involved in a traffic collision. Other police units, which had joined the chase, then pursued Patterson who continued to drive at high speeds and go through red lights. At one point, the police lost Patterson and terminated the pursuit, but shortly thereafter saw Patterson in the car again. Patterson went over a spike strip and lost control of his vehicle, which hit a light pole. When Patterson got out of his vehicle, he tried to run away but was apprehended. Police recovered between $140 and $150.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable issues: (1) whether Patterson's guilty pleas were constitutionally valid; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause; and (3) whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea.

We granted Patterson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Patterson on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: HALLER, J., IRION, J.


Summaries of

People v. Patterson

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Apr 30, 2009
No. D054208 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Patterson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES THOMAS PATTERSON…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Apr 30, 2009

Citations

No. D054208 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2009)