Filed 6/1/16 P. v. Throop 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

MARTIN THROOP,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A147265

 (Lake County

 Super. Ct. No. CR940436)

In this case we review a judgment following a no contest plea. Appellant’s

counsel has advised this court the appeal is proceeding pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436. Counsel has advised appellant of his decision and told appellant 

he can file a supplemental brief to present any claims appellant wishes to argue. He must 

do so within 30 days of counsel’s notification. To date we have not received any 

submission from appellant. We have reviewed the record independently and find no 

basis for disturbing the judgment in the case.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 9, 2015, the District Attorney of Lake County filed a complaint 

alleging appellant committed a felony violation of possession of methamphetamine for

sale, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378, and a misdemeanor count of 

simple possession of methamphetamine, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 

11377, subdivision (a). 
2

On October 26, 2015, appellant entered a plea of no contest to the felony 

possession for sale charge in the complaint. He was advised the remainder of the 

complaint would be dismissed, he would receive a probation sentence of three years, and 

serve no more than 90 days in the county jail. The trial court found appellant’s no contest 

plea was the result of a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights under 

Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, and the appellant understood the consequences 

of his plea. The parties also stipulated to the factual basis of the plea with the following 

recitation: “On October 7, 2015, in Lake County, the defendant was contacted and had 

on his person 15.4 grams of methamphetamine. That is a usable amount. And in the 

training and experience of . . . Officer Joseph Meyers, that the—that amount was 

possessed for purposes of sale.” The no contest plea of appellant also resulted in the 

resolution of two other cases. 

Appellant was sentenced on November 16, 2015. The court placed him on three 

years’ probation, with a condition he serve 90 days in the county jail, with credit for 81 

days. Additional fines and assessments compatible with specific provisions of the Health 

and Safety Code and the Penal Code were also imposed. Appellant submitted a request 

for a certificate of probable cause, claiming he entered his plea because he was under 

“emotional pressure and stress” due to the recent death of his mother. This request was 

denied by the trial court. 

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 1, 2015. 

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the record of the trial court proceedings. Appellant’s request 

for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court. This denial by the trial 

court significantly impacts any review of the plea process itself. (People v. Mendez 

(1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094–1095; People v. Lloyd (1998) 17 Cal.4th 658, 663.) We 

have reviewed this record on the merits and find no irregularities in the trial court. We 

have also reviewed the sentencing process and find no basis for upsetting the sentence 
3

imposed in this case. Appellant got what he bargained for in this matter. At all times, 

appellant appears to have been properly represented by counsel.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment in this case.
4

_________________________

DONDERO, J.

We concur:

_________________________

MARGULIES, Acting P. J.

_________________________

BANKE, J.

A147265