1

Filed 10/2/24 P. v. Trood CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PHILIP ALDEN TROOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A169672

 (Napa County

 Super. Ct. No. 22CR002847)

Philip Alden Trood appealed after he was sentenced to probation for 

cutting down a tree on city property. His appellate attorney has asked the 

court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

Trood was arrested in November 2022 and charged with felony 

vandalism and grand theft after reports that he had cut down a tree in a

Napa city park where he had been living in a homeless encampment for 

around 10 years. Around 10 months later, in September 2023, Trood pleaded 

no contest to one misdemeanor count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 

§ 496, subd. (a)).1 Under his plea agreement, he was to receive one year of 

formal probation. He also was to agree to move his personal belongings out of 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

specified.
2

the park where he cut down the tree, to stop living in the park (or within 100 

yards of it), and to stay away from the park from dusk until dawn. 

On the day in early November 2023 set for sentencing, Trood’s counsel 

informed the trial court that Trood wanted to withdraw his plea. The trial 

court continued the matter so that counsel could file a formal motion, which 

counsel did later that month. Attached to the motion was a statement from 

Trood describing a project he was working on at the park with other 

residents. According to Trood, the district attorney was trying “to oppress me 

to freely travel,” and he could not follow the conditions set forth in his plea 

agreement since they would “restrain [his] movement around [his] old home, 

prevent [him] from continuing [his] relationship with neighbors and limit[] 

[his] actions in and around Kennedy Park, [which was] ridicul[ous,] 

unreasonable and unacceptable.” Trood also attested that he did not want to 

admit to receiving stolen property because, as he stated, “I am not a thief.” 

He further attested that he was “a professional at tree care with over fifty 

years’ experience” and that the tree he cut down was dead when he removed 

it. He requested that all charges be dismissed or, in the alternative, that he 

be allowed to receive new counsel and proceed to trial. 

At the start of the hearing on the motion to withdraw and for 

sentencing, Trood stated that he wanted to fire his appointed attorney, and 

the court held a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The 

court denied the motion. In open court, Trood tried to present documents to 

the court, but his attorney stated that the documents might suggest 

ineffective assistance of counsel and also that the documents should not be 

disclosed to the prosecution in the event there was a trial. The court held 

another Marsden hearing, and the court again ruled against Trood. 
3

The trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea for lack of good 

cause shown. It then sentenced Trood under his plea agreement to one year 

of formal probation, subject to the agreed upon conditions set forth above. 

The court imposed two fees (Gov. Code, § 70373; § 1465.8) and the minimum 

restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and it waived further restitution subject 

to Trood’s successful completion of probation. Trood sought and was granted 

a certificate of probable cause to challenge the denial of his motion to 

withdraw his plea. 

Reviewing the record of Trood’s sentence and other matters occurring 

after Trood’s plea that do not affect his sentence (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.304(b)(2)(B)), we find no arguable issues, as the sentence and fine and 

fees imposed were authorized. And we find no reason to reverse the denial 

Trood’s motion to set aside his plea, as the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in determining that Trood did not establish good cause. (§ 1018; 

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 894.) Trood was represented by 

counsel throughout the proceedings below, and there is no indication in the 

record that he lacked understanding of the effects of his plea. And since the 

time Trood was sentenced, the U.S. Supreme Court issued City of Grants 

Pass v. Johnson (2024) ___ U.S. ___ [144 S.Ct. 2202], which weighs against 

any challenge to the conditions of Trood’s probation.

The order granting probation is affirmed.
4

_________________________

Humes, P .J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Banke, J.

_________________________

Siggins, J.*

*Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate 

District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.

People v. Trood A169672