Filed 9/26/14 P. v. White 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

TERRANCE WHITE,

Defendant and Appellant.

F066692

(Super. Ct. No. DF10844A)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Larry A. Errea, 

Judge.

Carol Foster and Deborah Prucha, 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., Detjen, J. and Chittick, J.†

†

Judge of the Superior Court of Fresno County, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
2

INTRODUCTION

On July 9, 2012, a criminal complaint was filed charging appellant Terrance White

with possession of a weapon while in prison custody (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)).

1

The complaint also alleged that appellant had three prior serious felony convictions 

within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-

(e)) and three prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). 

On August 20, 2012, appellant entered into a plea agreement. Appellant initialed 

and executed a felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form acknowledging and 

waiving his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.

2

 Appellant also acknowledged 

the consequences of his plea. In exchange for appellant’s admission of the offense and 

one prior serious felony conviction, the remaining allegations would be dismissed. Under 

the plea agreement, the court would sentence appellant to a term of four years that would 

be doubled to eight years pursuant to the three strikes law. 

During the change of plea hearing, defense counsel stated for the record that there 

had been a conference concerning the plea agreement in chambers. Because appellant 

was showing a decreasing level of violence, appellant’s past history included the use of 

narcotics, and there had been a passage of 18 years since those past events, the trial court 

would exercise its discretion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 

497. The trial court asked appellant if he had an opportunity to review his constitutional 

rights and other advisements in the plea form. Appellant replied affirmatively.

The court asked appellant if any other promises had been made to him for his 

change of plea other than those set forth in the plea form. Appellant replied, “No.” The 

court asked appellant if he had any questions to ask the court or his attorney. Appellant 

again replied, “No.” Appellant indicated he was willing to waive his rights. Counsel for 

 

1 Unless otherwise designated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
3

both sides stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Appellant pled no contest to a 

violation of section 4502, subdivision (a). Appellant admitted a prior serious felony 

conviction for section 215, subdivision (a) in Riverside County. One prior serious felony 

allegation was stricken and the other one was dismissed. The three prior prison term 

enhancements were also dismissed.

On December 6, 2012, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. Appellant 

asserted that his trial counsel was not aware of all of the evidence supporting appellant’s 

story. Appellant filed a declaration stating that during the proceedings, his trial counsel 

did not show him photographs of the item officers claimed was found on appellant and 

that appellant saw the photographs for the first time at his sentencing hearing when the 

attorney representing him that day asked the prosecutor for the photographs. Appellant 

did not believe his attorney had all of the information necessary to advise him of the 

consequences of going to trial.

On January 10, 2013, the trial court denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his 

plea. Prior to sentencing, the court heard the statement of Dr. Nancy Arvold. Dr. Arvold 

was a psychologist who had known appellant for two years and told the court she 

believed appellant had turned his life around. According to Dr. Arvold, appellant studied

psychological, philosophical, spiritual, and historical works. Appellant taught and was

enrolled in a parallel correspondence course. The court thanked Dr. Arvold for her 

comments. The court noted the plea was a stipulated term and sentenced appellant to a 

term of four years doubled to eight years pursuant to the three strikes law. The court 

made appellant’s sentence consecutive to the sentence he was serving for his felony 

conviction in Riverside County.

Appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has 

filed a brief seeking independent review of the case by this court pursuant to People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 
4

FACTS

At 6:11 p.m., on December 26, 2011, correctional officers were supervising the 

feeding of inmates in Facility B of the North Kern State Prison. The officers observed 

appellant and Tony Neal attempting to strike each other with their fists in the upper body 

and face. Both inmates were ordered into a prone position and both complied with the 

order. Both inmates were handcuffed. Officers found an inmate-manufactured stabbing 

weapon on appellant’s person. The weapon was approximately four inches long by onehalf inch in width and one-quarter inch thick. The weapon was fashioned from a brown 

state-issued spoon sharpened to a point on one end, with a state-issued sheet wrapped 

around the other end to form a handle.

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that 

summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the 

record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes 

the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his 

own brief with this court. By letter on July 19, 2013, we invited appellant to submit 

additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.

After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no 

reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.