Filed 3/14/22 P. v. Scott CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARSHALL CURTIS SCOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.

F081690

(Super. Ct. No. 18CM-0299)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. 

Burns, Judge.

Thomas R. O’Brien, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.
2.

Appointed counsel for defendant Marshall Curtis Scott asked this court to review 

the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. 

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2018, the Kings County District Attorney charged defendant with 

domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5;1 count 1) and false imprisonment (§ 236; 

count 2). The complaint further alleged defendant had suffered a prior “strike” 

conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 

1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). 

On May 7, 2018, defendant pled no contest to both counts and admitted violating 

probation in two misdemeanor cases, in return for a maximum sentence of four years 

eight months. The trial court struck the remaining allegations. 

On May 11, 2018, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted 

defendant three years’ probation with terms and conditions, including enrollment in a 

batterer’s treatment program. 

On January 10, 2019, defendant admitted violating probation. The trial court 

reinstated probation under the same terms and conditions. 

On March 18, 2020, defendant admitted violating probation in exchange for a 

suspended four-year sentence and reinstatement of probation. The trial court imposed 

and suspended the upper term of four years on count 1 and the upper term of three years 

on count 2, stayed pursuant to section 654, then reinstated probation, extended to 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3.

five years. A hearing was set for defendant to show proof of enrollment in the batterer’s 

treatment program. 

On May 27, 2020, defendant failed to appear, and a bench warrant was issued for 

his arrest. 

On August 5, 2020, at a contested hearing, the trial court found defendant in 

violation of probation. 

On September 2, 2020, the trial court terminated probation and ordered into 

execution the previously imposed and suspended four-year term on count 1 and stayed 

the three-year term on count 2. The court awarded custody credits and imposed various 

fines and fees. 

On September 3, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of 

ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.