Court Opinion

ID: 9925409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 18:02:51.101727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:21.393986
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/19/24 P. v. Lewis CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                       (Siskiyou)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097938

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. Nos. SCCR-CRF-
                                                                                 2020-348, SCCR-CRF-2021-
           v.                                                                                 376)

 ADAM CHRISTIAN LEWIS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Adam Christian Lewis resolved three pending criminal matters via a
global plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty or no contest to multiple offenses in
exchange for a stipulated 15-year term in state prison and dismissal of the remaining
charges. Appointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts
of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)

                                                             1
       After examining the record, it appears the trial court inadvertently failed to dismiss
the remaining charges in all three cases after accepting defendant’s guilty or no contest
pleas under the global plea agreement. We shall modify the judgment to dismiss the
remaining counts as contemplated by the parties. We have also discovered errors in the
abstract of judgment that we shall order be corrected. We find no other arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm the judgment as
modified.

                      FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
       In July 2019, defendant was charged in Siskiyou County case No. 19-1220 (case
No. 1220) with two felonies: conspiracy to commit theft (Pen. Code §§ 182, subd. (a)(1),
484, subd. (a), 487, subd. (a) & 488 [count 1], statutory section citations that follow are
found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated); possession of a billy or blackjack
(§ 22210 [count 2]); and three misdemeanors: prohibited interception of public safety
communication (§ 636.5 [count 3]); resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer
(§ 148, subd. (a)(1) [count 4]); and possession of a smoking device (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11364, subd. (a) [count 5]). Defendant was released on his own recognizance.
       In March 2020, defendant was charged in Siskiyou County case No. 20-348 (case
No. 348) with three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1
[against M.M. with a baseball bat], count 3 [against L.S. with a baseball bat] & count 6
[against E.L. with a motor vehicle]); three counts of assault by means likely to produce
great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), count 2 [M.M.], count 4 [L.S.] & count 7 [E.L.]);
first degree felony burglary with a nonaccomplice present (§§ 459, 667.5, subd. (c)(21),
count 5); and possession of a deadly weapon, a crossbow, with the intent to assault
another (§ 17500; count 8). For counts 1 and 2, it was alleged that defendant personally
inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and for counts 1 through 7 it was
alleged that defendant was released from custody on bail or his own recognizance in case

                                              2
No. 1220 at the time of the offenses (§ 12022.1). In April 2020, defendant was again
released on his own recognizance.
       This brief factual summary is based on the police reports, which the parties
stipulated to as the factual basis for defendant’s pleas.
       The charges in case No. 348 stemmed from police reports that defendant struck
E.L. with a vehicle as he was riding his gas-powered bicycle, which was later stolen, and
that defendant assaulted L.S. and M.M. with a bat because he believed they had stolen
property belonging to defendant’s deceased father.
       In March 2021, while out of custody, defendant was charged in Siskiyou County
case No. 21-376 (case No. 376) with attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated
murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 1 [victims Jane Doe and John Doe]); shooting at an
occupied vehicle (§ 246; count 2); and possession of a billy or blackjack (§ 22210, count
3). For count 1, it was alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a
firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)).
The trial court revoked defendant’s release and issued a criminal protective order for the
victims in case No. 376.
       Regarding the charges in case No. 376, the victim had reported being shot at while
driving from a casino where defendant had repeatedly threatened her; a red truck with a
driver resembling defendant had followed her and fired shots at her car as the truck
passed. A later search of the suspect vehicle located a container with defendant’s name
on it, documents with the name of the person who was with the victim when she made the
police report, binoculars, a methamphetamine pipe, and several weapons. Law
enforcement opined that defendant intended to kill the victim because he believed she
was involved in his father’s death and stole his property.
       The People moved to consolidate case No. 376 (defendant’s attempted murder
case) with two pending cases against defendant Justin Ritchison. The court denied the

                                              3
motion without prejudice to refile it following the preliminary hearing, which was set in
June 2021.
       In May 2022, defendant’s counsel, Mr. Ahart, declared a conflict based on his
prior representation of two adverse material witnesses in case No. 348. He asked to be
relieved and to have Mr. Magid appointed as defendant’s counsel. The court granted
counsel’s request.
       In September 2022, defendant reached a global plea agreement resolving all three
cases for a stipulated upper term sentence of 15 years in state prison. The parties agreed
to amend the complaint in case No. 376 to strike the premeditation and deliberation
allegations; add a firearm enhancement under section 12022.4, subdivision (a) to count 1;
and added a stalking charge as count 4. The parties stipulated to the police reports for
each incident as the factual basis for his pleas.
       In case No. 376, defendant pleaded guilty/no contest to one amended count of
attempted murder (count 1) and one added count of stalking (§ 646.9, count 4); admitted
the firearm enhancement added to count 1 (§ 12022.4, subd. (a)); and admitted being
released on bail or his own recognizance in case No. 348 and in case No. 1220 as to those
offenses (§ 12022.1). In case No. 348, defendant pleaded guilty/no contest to one count
of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1), which was amended to include all three
victims, admitted that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon during the
offense (making the offense a strike), and pleaded no contest to residential burglary with
a person present (count 5) as a strike offense (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)).
       We note that defendant checked the “guilty” box on his plea form. However,
during the plea hearing, defendant orally pleaded “no contest” to count 1 (attempted
murder) and “guilty” to count 4 (stalking) in case No. 376, and “no contest” to assault
with a deadly weapon (count 1) and first-degree residential burglary (count 5) in case
No. 348.

                                               4
       Under the terms of the agreement, after the completion of sentencing, all counts in
case No. 1220 were to be dismissed with a Harvey waiver and any remaining counts in
case No. 376 and case No. 348 would also be dismissed. Defendant stipulated to
aggravating factors to support upper term sentences, including that there was a pattern of
violence of increasing seriousness and that he was released on bail or his own
recognizance at the time of the offenses.
       In October 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated 15-year term,
which included the upper term of nine years for the attempted murder offense, a
consecutive upper term of three years for the attached firearm enhancement, consecutive
terms of one year each for the out on bail or own recognizance enhancements, and a
concurrent term of two years for the stalking offense in case No. 376. The court
sentenced defendant to a consecutive one year (one third the midterm) for the assault with
a deadly weapon conviction and a concurrent upper term of six years for the residential
burglary offense in case No. 348. The court also issued a criminal protective order under
section 640.9, subdivision (k) in case No. 376.
       After imposing sentence, the trial court advised defendant that his incarceration
would be followed by either three years post release community supervision under
section 3450 or three years parole under section 3000, subdivision (b)(1).
       The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and a $300 parole revocation
restitution fine (§ 1202.45) in case No. 376 and case No. 348, which were suspended
unless parole was revoked, a $40 court security assessment per conviction (§ 1465.8), a
$30 criminal conviction assessment per conviction (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $10
crime prevention fee plus penalty assessments (§ 1202.5) in case No. 348.
       In case No. 376, the court awarded 582 actual days of credit plus 86 days of
conduct credit for a total of 668 credit days. In case No. 348, the court awarded one
actual day of credit. At appellate counsel’s request pursuant to People v. Fares (1993)

                                             5
16 Cal.App.4th 954, the trial court corrected its credit calculation by awarding defendant
two additional days of credit in case No. 376.
       In February 2023, defendant submitted a pro. per. notice of appeal requesting a
certificate of probable cause. This court granted defendant’s request for permission to
file a notice of appeal under the constructive filing doctrine. The trial court then filed the
notice of appeal without granting a certificate of probable cause in March 2023.

                                        DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30
days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant.
       After examining the record, we have discovered a clerical error in the judgment.
The parties contemplated dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancements after the
plea in case No. 376 and case No. 348 and dismissal with a Harvey waiver of all the
counts in case No. 1220 as part of the plea agreement. The prosecutor stated that the
People would move to dismiss the remaining counts after sentencing was completed. The
trial court, however, inadvertently failed to discuss or otherwise address dismissal of the
remaining charges in case No. 376, case No. 348, or case No. 1220 after sentencing
defendant.
       As the “court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the
[approved] plea” (§ 1192.5), it follows the trial court’s silence at the sentencing hearing
regarding dismissal of the remaining charges was not an exercise of judicial discretion
but, rather, a clerical mistake in creating a record of the judgment. (In re Candelario
(1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705.) Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to reflect the

                                              6
dismissal of counts 2 and 3 plus attached enhancements in case No. 376 as well as counts
2 through 4 plus attached enhancements in case No. 348 and all the charges in case
No. 1220 as contemplated by the parties. Because the abstract of judgment properly
reflects defendant’s pleas to attempted murder and stalking in case No. 376 and to assault
with a deadly weapon and residential burglary in case No. 348, and no other counts, the
abstract of judgment need not be amended in this regard.
       However, we have found two additional errors on the abstract of judgment that
require correction. The abstract reflects a $39 probation revocation restitution fine
imposed under section 12022.44 in case No. 348, which the trial court never orally
imposed. And, although the trial court imposed a $30 criminal conviction assessment for
each of defendant’s four convictions under Government Code section 70373, for a total
assessment of $120, the abstract erroneously reflects a $130 criminal conviction
assessment. “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment
and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.”
(People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385, citing People v. Mitchell (2001)
26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186 [appellate court with jurisdiction can order correction of
abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing
courts].) We shall direct that the abstract be corrected accordingly.
       We find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is modified to dismiss count 2 and count 3 in case No. 376 and any
attached enhancements, counts 2 through 4 in case No. 348 as well as any attached
enhancements, and all charges in case No. 1220. As so modified, the judgment is
affirmed. The clerk of the superior court shall prepare a corrected abstract of judgment
that deletes the $39 fine under section 12022.44 for case No. 348 and reflects a $120
criminal conviction assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373. The clerk

                                             7
shall forward a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                                                  HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MESIWALA, J.

WISEMAN, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              8