Court Opinion

ID: 9839680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 19:04:08.650944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:04.040159
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/13/23 P. v. Lindsay 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E080686

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FWV21002587)

 TIELMAN RICHARD LINDSAY,                                                OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bridgid M.

McCann, Judge. Affirmed.

         Michelle T. LiVecchi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Defendant and appellant Tielman Richard Lindsay appeals from an order denying

his motion to withdraw his plea. For the reasons set forth post, we affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                            STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       On December 12, 2021, an information charged defendant with carjacking under

Penal Code1 section 215, subdivision (a)2 (count 1); assault by a machine gun or assault

weapon under Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(3) (counts 3, 4, 5); “evading an

officer, willful disregard,” under Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a) (count 6);

evading an officer against traffic under Vehicle code section 2800.4 (count 7); driving or

taking a vehicle without consent under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a)

(count 8); receiving a stolen vehicle under Penal Code section 496d (count 9); possession

of an assault weapon under Penal Code section 30605, subdivision (a) (count 10); and a

misdemeanor violation of resisting, obstructing, delaying of a police officer or EMT

under Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1).

       On August 12, 2022, defendant entered into a plea agreement. Defendant pled no

contest to carjacking under section 215, subdivision (a) (count 1), and admitted to using a

firearm under section 12022.53, subdivision (b).

       On January 4, 2023, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The

People filed their opposition to the motion on January 10, 2023 On January 19, 2023,

defendant filed a declaration in support of his motion to withdraw his plea.

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

       2 The information also charged the codefendant Angela Marie Lindsay with
carjacking under section 215, subdivision (a) (count 2), and counts 8, 9, and 10.
Codefendant Lindsay is not a party to this appeal.

                                             2
       On January 19, 2023, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw the

plea, dismissed the remaining counts, and sentenced defendant in accordance with the

plea agreement for an aggregate term of 19 years.

       On February 10, 2023, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of

his “Motion to Withdraw Plea.” In his notice of appeal, defendant also requested a

certificate of probable cause; the trial court denied defendant’s request.

                               STATEMENT OF FACTS3

       At 8:34 p.m. on July 9, 2021, David Janusz, a sergeant with the Fontana City

Police Department, heard a dispatch broadcasting a “hit on a felony vehicle around Sierra

and Valley in the city of Fontana.” Sergeant Janusz located the vehicle, which was a

white Hyundai Elantra. When the sergeant attempted to initiate a traffic stop of the

Elantra, the driver fled in the vehicle. Thereafter, a high-speed pursuit ensued: “It was a

lengthy pursuit. Approximately an hour and 15 minute pursuit at speeds over 100 miles

an hour. They traveled to San Bernardino, out to Moreno Valley, and then back to Mira

Loma.”

       Four other officers joined Sergeant Janusz in the pursuit. During the pursuit, the

driver of the Elantra drove against traffic on a freeway and collided with an oncoming

vehicle.

       3 The statement of facts regarding defendant’s plea is taken from the preliminary
hearing transcript. The prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated that the preliminary
hearing could serve as the factual basis for count 1.

                                              3
       Once defendant and the codefendant were in the Corolla, they continued to flee

from the officers. Another “lengthy” pursuit ensued with defendant continuing to drive at

high speeds and in an “erratic” manner. At one point, when defendant came to a dead-

end street, defendant “drove through a front yard, down a side yard of a residence, and

then crashed through a back fence leading onto another major street.”

       Eventually, defendant pulled into a gas station, and officers were able to

apprehend defendant and the codefendant. The officers saw “a black AR-15-style rifle

sitting in the center console” of the Corolla.

                                        DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, and upon his 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 v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of

the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this

court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified

the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:

       1.     “Was the Court’s denial of appellant’s certificate of probable cause

proper?”

       2.     “Did the Court err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea?”

       After defense counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, we offered defendant

an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and 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. We are satisfied that defendant’s

                                                 4
attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue

exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

                                        DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                        MILLER
                                                                                         J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                       Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                                   J.

                                             5