Court Opinion

ID: 9953296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 19:04:03.802145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:54.467664
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/21/24 P. v. Messer CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                        A168687
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.                                                                     (Sonoma County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. SCR-755090-1)
 KORY WAYNE MESSER,
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Appellant Kory Wayne Messer appeals from a judgment following his
admission to violating the terms of his probation. Appellant’s counsel has
raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Appellant has filed two supplemental briefs. We have reviewed the record
and appellant’s briefs, find no arguable issues, and affirm.

                                                               1
                               BACKGROUND
      In September 2022, appellant pled no contest to child abduction (Pen.
Code,1 § 278) and violating a protective order (§ 273.6).2 According to the
probation report, in June 2022 appellant went to the home of his estranged
wife, who had a temporary domestic violence restraining order protecting her
and their children from appellant, and attempted to take one of their children
from her home.
      As part of the plea agreement, appellant also admitted two aggravating
factors: numerous prior convictions and a prior prison term. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 4.421(b)(2)–(3).) The written plea agreement reflected a
maximum possible term of four years and stipulated that appellant’s
sentence would be suspended and appellant would be granted probation to be
released to a residential treatment program.
      In October 2022, the court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of
four years (the upper term on the child abduction count (§ 278)), with no split
sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)). The court suspended execution of the
sentence and placed appellant on three years’ probation. The terms of his
probation provided he was to be released to a specified residential treatment
program and was to complete programs as directed by that residential
program and his probation officer.
      In January 2023, probation was summarily revoked following a report
from appellant’s probation officer that appellant was discharged from the
residential program “due to confrontational and aggressive behavior.”

      1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

      2 At the same hearing, appellant also entered a no contest plea in a

separate case.

                                       2
      At a May 2023 revocation hearing, the court denied appellant’s request
to substitute counsel after holding a Marsden hearing.3 Following the
Marsden denial, appellant’s counsel declared a doubt as to appellant’s
competency and the trial court appointed a psychiatrist to assess appellant’s
competence.
      In August 2023, after the psychiatrist opined appellant was competent
and no other evidence on the issue was presented, the trial court found
appellant competent. Appellant admitted violating probation by failing to
complete the treatment program. The trial court reinstated the previously
imposed sentence of four years’ imprisonment. The trial court awarded
credits and imposed fines and fees.
      The trial court denied appellant’s requests for a certificate of probable
cause.
                                DISCUSSION
      Appellant was adequately represented by legal counsel throughout the
proceedings. To the extent they are reviewable, the trial court’s orders
denying appellant’s Marsden motion and finding appellant competent were
proper. Before appellant admitted violating probation, the trial court
reviewed his rights and confirmed that he understood them and wished to
waive them.
      In his supplemental briefs, appellant raises arguments about the
factual basis for the underlying offenses, various proceedings and orders
before his September 2022 no contest plea, whether his September 2022 plea
was entered knowingly, and the factual basis for his admission to violating
probation. These issues are not cognizable. (People v. Sem (2014)

      3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).

                                       3
229 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1186–1187 [“Matters occurring before a plea of guilty
or no contest that affect the plea’s validity cannot be raised without a
certificate of probable cause. [Citation.] . . . ‘[T]he same principles apply’ to
an admission of a probation violation.”].) Appellant’s challenges to his
sentence, based in part on statutes in effect at the time his sentence was
imposed in October 2022, are also not cognizable. (People v. Howard (1997)
16 Cal.4th 1081, 1095 [“[D]efendant . . . did not contest the validity of the
sentence the court imposed when granting probation. No good reason exists
for allowing her to do so once the court revoked her probation.”].) Appellant’s
contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the matter was for
the family court presiding over appellant’s divorce proceedings fails. (§ 777
[“the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the
jurisdictional territory of which it is committed”].) Finally, appellant asserts
that he has copies of reporters’ transcripts with the wrong date, the wrong
attorney, and/or different wording. Appellant fails to identify any error
proven by these discrepancies.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                      SIMONS, Acting P. J.
We concur.

BURNS, J.
CHOU, J.

(A168687)

                                         4