1

Filed 3/1/13 P. v. Hempe CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN RICARDO HEMPE,

Defendant and Appellant.

E054888

(Super.Ct.No. FWV1002625)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING PETITION FOR 

REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed in this matter on February 

4, 2013, is hereby modified, as follows:

On page 4, delete the first paragraph, and replace it with the following:

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal 

supplemental brief, and granted numerous extensions at his 

request, but he did not do so until after this opinion was 

initially filed on February 4, 2013. On February 14, 2013, 

defendant filed a 15-page letter, with exhibits, raising a 

number of issues, which he divides into three main categories. 

Defendant first argues his two attorneys provided 

ineffective assistance of counsel when they allowed him to 

plead guilty and failed to: file an appeal on his behalf; 
2

investigate; present evidence or witness testimony; present 

certain jury instructions on the defenses of ignorance, mistake 

of facts or necessity; and file a Pitchess motion. Here, 

defendant did receive the assistance of appointed appellate 

counsel, and so any deficiencies by his trial attorneys in 

failing to file an appeal did not prejudice him. A cognizable 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel following a guilty 

plea requires a showing that the defendant would not have 

pled guilty and insisted on going to trial but for counsel’s 

incompetent advice. (In re Resendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230, 

253.) Such a claim must be corroborated by independent, 

objective evidence. (Ibid.) Pertinent factors to be considered 

include the advice actually given by counsel, whether counsel 

accurately and effectively communicated the terms of the 

offer to the defendant, and the difference between the offer 

and the probable consequences of proceeding to trial, as 

viewed at the time the offer was made. (Ibid.) Defendant 

does not make this showing with regard to his claims on the 

presentation of evidence and witnesses, as well as jury 

instructions. Defendant does not state with any specificity 

what information his attorneys would have uncovered had 

they investigated to his satisfaction. Finally, defendant does 

not explain, much less establish, how filing a Pitchess motion 

would have resulted in a better outcome for him. 

Next, defendant argues he was denied equal protection 

and due process because: his attorneys were not able to sever 

his case from that of his codefendant “as well as any other 

motions which would have led to a different outcome;” and 

his attorneys “unjustly conspired with the District Attorney” 

to deny him discovery, ignored $2,800 in marked currency 

found on his person and unjustly increased the amount of 

victim restitution. Regarding the severance motion, we 

cannot find any mention in this record that the defense filed or 

orally made such a motion. To the extent this is a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to make a 

severance motion, defendant fails to establish both ineffective 

assistance and prejudice therefrom. Regarding the “any other 

motions” claim, we are unable to determine to what he is 

referring. Regarding the claims his attorneys conspired with 

the District Attorney, such claims based on matters outside 

the record on direct appeal are more appropriately raised in a 
3

habeas corpus proceeding. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 

15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.) We must therefore reject these 

claims.

Defendant’s third main contention is unintelligible. He 

refers in several places to an inmate labor program and joint 

ventures. In addition, he attaches as an exhibit several pages 

of a document published by the Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation about a Joint Venture Program that 

provides employment for inmates, but we are unable to 

determine what appealable issue he intends to raise. Because 

defendant fails to present this argument in a cogent manner, 

we need not consider the issue. (People v. Bonin (1989) 47 

Cal.3d 808, 857, fn. 6.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for 

potential error and find no arguable issues.

Except for this modification, the opinion remains unchanged. This modification 

does not change the judgment.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P.J.

We concur:

RICHLI

J.

MILLER

J.
1

Filed 2/4/13 P. v. Hempe CA4/2 (unmodified version)

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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN RICARDO HEMPE,

Defendant and Appellant.

E054888

(Super.Ct.No. FWV1002625)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Mary E. Fuller, 

Judge. Affirmed.

Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Jonathan Ricardo Hempe is serving 33 years in prison 

after pleading guilty to robbery, extortion and burglary, and admitting a gun use 

enhancement. As discussed below, we affirm the judgment.
2

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On October 20, 2010, defendant and his codefendant were at the codefendant’s 

home with two friends/victims talking and drinking. When the four men went for a drive, 

defendant and one of the victims, Paredes, got into an argument over money Paredes 

owed to defendant. At some point defendant had Paredes place a call to his father telling 

him he needed some money to pay off a debt. Defendant took the phone from Paredes 

and told the father that he had Paredes in the trunk of his car and that something bad 

would happen if he did not pay $1500. Defendant sent a text to his codefendant saying he 

was going to “smoke” both of the victims. Defendant was armed with a 9-millimeter 

handgun and his codefendant had a .357 revolver. The car pulled over to a desolate area 

and defendant told the two victims to “just get out of here.” He also took their wallets 

and cell phones. As the victims walked away, defendant fired at them four times, striking 

Paredes once in the back. Defendant and his codefendant then drove to Paredes’ 

residence and demanded money from the family while brandishing their handguns. The 

family handed over $600. 

On October 22, 2010, the People filed a complaint charging defendant with two 

counts of attempted first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187(a)),1two counts of 

second degree robbery (§ 211), two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), 

extortion (§ 520), residential burglary (§ 459), possession of a short-barreled shotgun or 

rifle (§ 12020, subd. (a)), two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. 
3

(a)(1)), and possession for sale of a controlled substance (§ Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). 

The People also alleged that defendant had a prior strike (§§ 1170.12 & 667, subds. (b)-

(i)) and serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that he personally used a 

firearm and caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.53). 

On April 26, 2011, defendant pled guilty to second degree robbery with personal 

use of a firearm (without the great bodily injury allegation), one count of extortion, and 

one count of residential burglary. Defendant also admitted to having one prior strike and 

one serious felony conviction. 

On June 8, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed term of 33 years 

in prison, as follows: three years for the robbery, doubled to six years for the prior strike, 

20 years for the firearm enhancement, two years for the robbery, a stayed term of two 

years and eight months for the burglary, and five years for the prior serious felony. 

At the victim restitution hearing held on August 18, 2011, the trial court ordered 

defendant to pay $40,000 to Paredes for uninsured medical bills and $7,560 to the other 

victim. Defendant’s liability is joint and several with that of his codefendant. Defense 

counsel agreed to these amounts. This appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION 

Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel 

has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders 

 

[footnote continued from previous page]

1

 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
4

v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a 

statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting 

this court to conduct an independent review of the record. 

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and 

granted numerous extensions at his request, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the 

mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the 

record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

RICHLI

J.

MILLER

J.