Court Opinion

ID: 9556563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 18:03:43.006495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:09:51.540106
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/17/23 P. v. Robinson 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E081123

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF2202443)

 MAURICE ROBINSON,                                                       OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Arthur Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                             I.

                                    INTRODUCTION

       Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant and appellant Maurice Robinson

pleaded guilty to dissuading a witness by force or fear (Pen. Code,1 § 136.1, subds. (b)

&(c)) and misdemeanor battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). He also admitted that he had

suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1) & 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). In

exchange, the remaining charges and enhancement allegation were dismissed, and

defendant was sentenced to a stipulated term of 32 months in prison with credit of

340 days for time served. Defendant appeals from an order after judgment. Based on our

independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

                                            II.

                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

       Jane Doe (C.S.) and defendant were in a dating relationship for about two months.

In February 2022, they were in the process of breaking up. During this time, defendant

unexpectedly appeared at C.S.’s home at around 1:00 a.m. and banged on the front door

of C.S.’s home. C.S. opened the door and allowed him to come inside as he told her that

he was there to get his remaining belongings. When C.S. told defendant that she no

longer wanted to be with him, defendant slapped C.S. on her face with an open hand.

Defendant then grabbed her cellphone as C.S. was in the process of calling 911 and threw

       1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code.

       2 The factual background is taken from the preliminary hearing transcript.

                                             2
it against the wall, causing it to break. He also retrieved C.S.’s car keys and took the

battery out. After he got his mail, he left. Before he left, defendant threatened to kill

C.S. if she contacted the police, causing her to be scared. Defendant also threatened to

kill her if he saw her with another man.

       When C.S. went to her car so she could go to her mother’s home, she noticed that

all four tires on her car had been slashed, the hood of her car had been keyed, and the side

view mirrors had been knocked off. C.S. paid around $230 to replace all four tires and

approximately $1,000 to fix the keyed marks on her car. She had not replaced her side

view mirrors and did not get an estimate to replace them.

       Following the incident, C.S. moved out of her apartment and moved in with her

mother. About two weeks after the incident, defendant showed up at C.S.’s mother’s

house and again slashed all four tires of C.S.’s vehicle.

       Following a preliminary hearing, an information was filed charging defendant

with felony dissuading a witness by force or fear (§ 136.1, subds. (b) & (c)(1); count 1);

misdemeanor domestic battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count 2); felony vandalism causing

damage greater than $400 (§ 594, subds. (a) & (b)(1); count 3); and misdemeanor

vandalism causing damage less than $400 (§ 594, subd. (a); count 4). The information

also alleged defendant suffered a 2004 manslaughter conviction that qualified as a prior

serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike (§§ 667, subd. (c) & (e), 1170.12,

subd. (c)).

                                              3
       On February 27, 2023, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded

guilty to counts 1 and 2 and admitted the prior strike conviction. In return, defendant was

promised the remaining allegations would be dismissed, and he would be sentenced to a

stipulated term of 32 months in prison with 340 days’ credit for time served.

       Prior to pleading guilty, defendant executed a felony plea form. The trial court

went over the plea form with defendant. In response to the trial court’s query, defendant

indicated that he had gone over the plea form with his attorney and that he understood his

constitutional rights, the consequences of the plea, and the plea agreement. Defendant

acknowledged he had initialed and signed the plea form and indicated he had no

questions for the court. Defendant’s counsel joined in the plea and indicated the plea was

voluntary. After directly examining defendant, the court found that defendant knowingly,

intelligently, freely, and voluntarily waived his rights and that he understood the charges

against him and the possible consequences of his plea.

       The following day, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea

agreement to 32 months (the low term of 16 months doubled) in prison with 340 days’

credit for time served, and the remaining allegations were dismissed. Defendant was

ordered to pay a restitution fine in the amount of $300 (§1202.4, subd. (b)) and a

$300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (c)). Defendant was also ordered to pay an

$80 court operations assessment and a $60 criminal conviction fee. At defense counsel’s

request, the court ordered the probation department to determine the amount of victim

restitution.

                                             4
       Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable

cause. In his request for certificate of probable cause, defendant questioned why he was

given an additional 16 months for a crime he had committed about 20 years ago and had

already served time for. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of

probable cause.

                                               III.

                                       DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the

authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386

U.S. 738, 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.

Counsel identifies the possible issues of whether defendant was sentenced in accordance

with his plea agreement and whether the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s

request for a certificate of probable cause.

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

has not done so.

       An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the

record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in

reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-

                                                5
442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386

U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

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

independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                           IV.

                                     DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                  CODRINGTON
                                                                                          J.
We concur:

McKINSTER
                Acting P. J.

MILLER
                          J.

                                            6