1

Filed 12/16/20 P. v. Lindeman CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. LUKE LINDEMAN, Defendant and Appellant. A158944
( Napa County Sup. Ct

. No. CR184609)

Luke Lindeman (app ellant) appeals from a judgment in which he was placed on three years of probation after a jury convicted him of two felony
counts of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) 1 and one misdemeanor count of resisting or obst ructing a peace officer (§ 148) and the
trial court convicted him of two Vehicle Code infractio ns. Appellate counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed o f his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further
b riefing and affirm the judgment.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND An in formation filed December 4, 2017 charged appellant with two felony counts of resisting an executive officer (§ 69), one misdemeanor count of resisting or obstructing a peace officer ( § 148), and three Vehicle Code infractions. Appellant ple ade d not guilty. The trial court denied appellant’s
various pre

- trial motions including a motion to dismiss, a motion to compel discovery , and a motion to admit certain evidence at trial

. The cour t also head and denied appellant’s motion to represent himself ( People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118).
At the jury trial, Napa police officer Aaron Medina testified he was on traffic enforcement duty on September 7, 2017. At 6:30 or 7:00 p.m., he
notic ed a Ford diesel pickup truck emitting excessive exhaust, then noticed the truck had no rear license plate. He pulled the truck over and walked up to speak to the driver, later identified as appellant. Medin a noticed there was a lot of “clutter” and “pro perty” inside the truck. Medina was planning to give appellant a ticket and release him, but when he asked appellant for his driver’s license, appellant responded, “maybe.” As Medina continued to question appell ant, appellant gave a lot of “non answers .” At that point, Medina asked appellant to turn off his truck, but appellant refused to do so.
Medina was not able to obtain any identification from appellant. Appellant then called someone and made statements during the call
that led Medina to believ e he was preparing to flee. Medina told a ppellant he could not leave, gave him several warnings, and eventually told him he was under arrest for resisting and obstructing a peace officer . Medina called for assistance, and a number of officers including S ergeant Cole of the Napa County Sheriff’s Department arrived to assist him. With Cole’s help, Medina3

got appellant out of his truck, placed him in handcuffs, and put him in a patrol car.
Around the same time that evening, Napa County Sheriff’s deputy
Michael Hudson was on his way to the scene of a burglary when he heard Medina’s dispatch call asking for backup. Hudson continued onto the burglary scene, where he saw evidence of a forced entry and met with the victim, who reported her hous e had been burglarized and she believed appellant was the suspect. Hudson called Medina to let him know he believed Medina had just arrested a burglary suspect. Hudson named some
items missing from the victim’s home , including gardening tools and a gray iPad, and Medina confirmed those items were in the back of appellant’s
truck

. 2
Hudson then went to the location where Medina had appellant in custody and placed appellant in his own patrol car to inte rview him rega rding the burglary

. Later, Deputy Keith Walmsley o f the Napa Sheriff’s Department arrived to transport appellant to Napa jail

. Walmsley opened the door to Hudson’s patrol car and instructed appellant to get out of the car for jail transport

. Appellant p ut his right foot out of the car and began arguing with Walmsley. After a failed attempt to have a conversation with appellant, Walmsley told appellant to put his foot back in the car. Appellant
refused to do so, and instead hoo ked his toes under the car door and stiffened his body to thwart any effort to get him back in the car. A struggle ensued,
wit h Walmsley and Hudson trying to get appellant back inside the car , during the course of which Walmsley dislocat ed his finger. Eventually, officers restrained appellant in a “wrap device” and transported him to jail.

2 Burglary charges against appellant were ul timately dismissed.4

The prosecution presented evidence of a prior incident in which appellant was arrested. A little after midnight o n June 9, 2014, Winters police officer Steven Moore stopped a white pickup truck with a broken taillight. The driver

— appellant

— jumped out of the truck in an agitated
manner and faced Moore, which was unusual and caused Moore concern. Moore told appellant to get back in his truck, and appellant complied , but
when Mo ore asked for appellant’s driver’s license and other information, appellant said Moore “ didn’t need it ” and that he was a “crook, not a cop.” Moore called for backup assistance ; with the help of other officers, he placed defendant in the back of his patro l car. As Moore drove to the police department, appellant kick ed at the rear window of the patrol car , causing damage the window track and frame. Moore requested aid from Davis police officers , who arrived and placed appellant i n a wrap device, which all owed Moore to transport appellant to jail without further incident. The jury found appellant guilty of two felony counts of resisting an executive officer (§ 69) and one misdemeanor count of resisting or obstr ucting a peace officer (§ 148). The trial co urt found appellant guilty of two of the three infractions, and dismissed the third. The court suspended imposition of
sentence and placed appellant on probation for three years with various conditions, including 120 days in jail, stayed pending appeal. Appellant timely appealed.
D ISCUSSION Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to independently review the entire record to determine if it contains any issues which would, if resolved fav orably to defendant, result in reversal or modification. We have examined the entire record and have found no reasonably arguable appellate issue, and we are5

satisfied that cou nsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109

– 110; People v. Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d at

p. 441.)
D ISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.6 _________________________ Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Siggins, P.J.

_________________________ J ackson, J.

A158944/People v. Lindeman