1

Filed 3/11/ 21 P. v. Outlaw 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA , Plaintiff and Responden t ,

v. JASON MARCUS OUTLAW , Defendant and Appellant. A 1 60 842
( Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SC UK

- CRCR

- 19

- 32613 )

Defendant Jason Marcus Outlaw appeals from the trial court ’s imposi tion of a six

- year prison term after Outlaw pleaded no contest to felony
domestic violence and multiple misdemeanor counts of resisting arrest

. Outlaw ’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. Having done so, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 20 20 , after Outlaw waived his right to a prelimi nary hearing, the M endocino County District Attorney filed a n information
al leging that Outlaw had committed felony corporal injury on a specified2

person, S.K., on or about March 18, 2019 (Pen. Code, 1 § 2 73.5 , subd. (a) , count

one ) ; felony assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury upon S.K. on or about that same date (§ 2 45 , subd. (a) (4) , count two); felony corporal injury on a specified person, S.K., on or about February 7 , 2020 (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count three ) ; four felony counts of resisting an executive officer by force or threat in connection with the February 2020 incident (§ 69, subd. (a) , count s four through seven ) ; one misdemeanor count of resisting , obstructing, or delaying an officer in connection with the March 2019 incident (§ 148 , subd. (a) (1) , count eight); and misdemeanor violation of a court order to prevent domestic violence (§ 273.6, subd. (a), count nine )

. In addition, it was alleged that Outlaw had previously suffered a stri ke conviction in November 2007 for felony driving under the influence (§ 23153, subd, (a)), with two admitted great bodily injury enhancements (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Finally, the information stated that Outlaw had been convicted previously of

two or more felonies within the meaning of sections 1170.12 and 667. The charges stemmed from two separate incident s o f domesti c violence against the same victim

. 2 P olice officers responded to a 911 hang up call in the early morning o f March 18 , 2019, in which a female could be heard crying and screaming. T hey found a n apparent blood mark on the motel room door. Outlaw answered an officer’s knock but refused to produce the female occupant, attempting instead to close the door. After the officer kicked i n the door, S.K.

— who had been in a dating relationship with Outlaw since May
2018

— was discovered crying and “visibly upset” on the floor. She had red

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2 Our recitation of pertinent facts is gleaned from the probation report and the March 2019 police reports in this matter

. We note that when Outlaw pleaded no contest to count one, he purported to do so pursuant to People v. West ( 1970 ), 3 Cal.3d 595 , defense counsel stating that Outlaw “ does not have the same recollection of events as outlined in the police report .”3

marks o n the left side of her face and neck, as well as on her left arm and the right side of her chest. S.K. also had swelling and dried blood on the left side
of her head above her ear

. She told an officer that Outlaw had purchased alcohol and, as he became more intoxicated, accused her of cheating on him
and other random misdeeds

. Outlaw eventually grab bed her on the bed and repeatedly punched her with a closed fist on the left side of her head while holding her down with his other hand on her neck and his knee on her side. S.K. pressed the emergency 911 button on her watch and Outlaw eventually stopped punching and got another alcoholic drink. The following day, Outlaw left S.K. a voicemail message, violating the Emergency Protective Order that
had been issued after the incident.
O n February 7, 2020, a deputy sheriff responded to a report of domestic
violence at a rest stop in Willits. S.K. advised the deputy that Outlaw, who was agitated and had been drinking, showed up at her trailer, “ ‘blew’ ” open the door, kicked her in the shin, put both hands around her neck, head butted
her several t imes, and then punched her in the abdomen. S.K. was able to escape and drove to the rest stop to call for help. The deputy observed red marks on S.K.’s body consistent with her account. After discovering that Outlaw was on felony probation in Los Angele s County and had an active felony warrant from Mendocino County, the deputy called other deputies to assist in responding to S.K.’s residence. When he was advised that he was under arrest, Outlaw refused to leave S.K.’s trailer, pacing and stating
several times: “ ‘[D]o me a favor and blow my fucking head off.’ ” After on e of the deputies deployed his K9 partner, Outlaw took a fighting stance and attempted to punch the deputies. Even after he was placed on his stomach on the ground , he continued to resi st his arrest by kicking and flailing his legs . H e was eventually subdued and taken into custody.4

O n July 10 , 2 0 20 , the trial court reduced counts four through seven to
misdemeanors. The court advised Outlaw of his rights , and Outlaw
submitted a written waiver of right s to the court. Outlaw acknowledged that under the plea agreement, he faced the possibility of up to eight years in state prison. Outlaw then ple a d ed no contest to counts one, four, five, six,
and seven and admitted the prior strike in return for the dismissal of the remaining counts with a Harvey 3 waiver

. The court found Outlaw ’ s pleas to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
A t the sentencing hearing on August 19 , 20 20 , the trial court refused defense counsel’s Romero 4 request, stating it could not “in good conscious strike the strike prior,” given that this was Outlaw’s seventh felony and that
Romero motions had been granted on two previous occasions. The trial court additionally den ied probation , noting Outlaw had been given probation with respect to five prior felony convictions and committed the instant offense while on probation

. Acknowledging and rejecting Outlaw’s substance abuse problem as a mitigating factor, the court summariz ed its reasoning as
follows : “I don’t agree that putting him back on probation is the proper result in this case when he’s on felony probation . . . with a strike prior, with a history of drinking and driving that caused injury to people and then including continuing [to] drive, continuing to drink. He’s not getting the message. Mr. Outlaw poses a risk to the community, even on probation,
because it was while he was on probation that he committed this offense. ”
T he trial court sentence d Outlaw to the three

- year mid

- term on count

one , doubled to six years due to the prior strike

. The court directed the one
year sentences for the four misdemeanor counts to run concurrent to the six

3 P eople v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758

- 759.

4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.5

years. Credits were set at 389 days

. The court also im posed a restitution fine of $ 2400 , along with a corresponding suspended parole revocation fine

. ( §§ 1202.4 , subd. (b), 1202.45 , subd. (a)

. ) C riminal conviction and court security fees of $ 150 and $ 200 , respectively , were stayed by the court. ( Gov. Code § § 70373 , 1465.8 .) The court also reduced the presentence investigation report fee from $712 to $412. (§ 1203.1, subd. (b).) Direct victim restitution
was reserved. Outlaw filed a timely notice of appeal, limited to sentencing
issues.
DIS CUSSION
As discuss ed above, Outlaw appealed from the trial court’s August 2020 sentencing order made after he pleaded no contest to a felony domestic violence charge and multiple misdemeanor counts of resisting arrest

. We appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed

a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. ( Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 , 441; see also People v. Kelley (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109

- 110 .) Outl aw was advised by his attorney of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court, but he
has not done so.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Outlaw’s attorney has complied with h er responsibilities and that no arguable issue
exists. While it is conceivable that the record could have supported a lesser sentence or return to probation , t he six

- year sentence was consistent with the plea agreement and r epresents a permissible exercise of the court ’ s discretion under all of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially given Outlaw’s multiple prior felony convictions and previous probation failure s

. ( People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 [reviewing sentencing decision , which
must be based on “ ‘ individualized consideration of the offense, the offender,6

and the public interest ,’ ” for abuse of discretion ] ; see also People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App. 4th 1281, 1323 [“ The trial court has broad discretion with regard to sentencing, and its decision will be affirmed on appeal, so long as it is not arbitrary or irrational and is supported by any reasonable inferences
from the record. ” ].) In addition , we see no issue s with respect to the fines and fees imposed by the court, to which c ounsel did not object

. DISPOSITION
T he judgment is affirmed.7 SANCHEZ, J.

We concur.

MARGULIES, ACTING P.J.

BANKE, J.

(A 160842 )