Court Opinion

ID: 9368024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 18:02:46.669226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.512536
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/2/23 P. v. Caradine CA1/3
             NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,
  Plaintiff and Respondent,                             A165088

v.                                                      (Mendocino County
                                                        Super. Ct. Nos.
LEARTIS KAMAU MAURICE                                   SCUKCRCR2020354221
CARADINE,                                               SCUKCRCR2020367511
  Defendant and Appellant.                              21CR01759)

          Defendant Leartis Kamau Maurice Caradine appeals from
judgments in three cases, one resolved by jury trial, and two resolved
by plea agreements.
          In case No. SCUKCRCR2020354221 (“Case 422”), Caradine was
charged with several felony offenses including second-degree burglary
of a jewelry and pawn store (Pen. Code,1 §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)). The
following was the agreed factual basis for the burglary charge (as set
forth in a change of plea form): On June 23, 2020, Caradine had
entered the jewelry and pawn store, with the intent to commit larceny
therein while the business was open.

1         All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                           1
      In case No. SCUKCRCR2020367511 (“Case 751”), Caradine was
charged with the felony offense of failure to appear in violation of
section 1320.5, together with a special allegation that he was out on
bail at the time of his failure to appear (§ 12022.1) and a sentencing
enhancement allegation for a prior strike (§§ 667, 1170.12). The failure
to appear charge arose from an incident on October 28, 2020, when
Caradine failed to appear at a pre-trial court hearing in Case 422.
      On June 29, 2021, a jury trial was held on the failure to appear
charge filed in Case 751. Mendocino County Sheriff’s Deputy Robert
Hamilton testified that on November 28, 2020, he arrested Caradine
based on an outstanding warrant for his arrest due to his failure to
appear in court on October 28, 2020 in Case 422. District Attorney
Investigator Bryan Arrington identified certified court documents
indicating that in Case 422 Caradine had been released from custody
after posting a bail bond; on September 24, 2020 he was present in
court and ordered to appear on October 28; when he failed to appear in
court on October 28, his bail was forfeited and a bench warrant was
issued for his arrest; and on December 1 he was back in custody and
present in court via video. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the
failure to appear charge. After Caradine waived his right to a jury trial
on the special and strike allegations, the trial court found Caradine was
out on bail at the time of his failure to appear based on evidence
admitted at the jury trial and Caradine had sustained a prior strike
based on certified court documents for that conviction. The matter was
continued for further proceedings and Caradine remained out of
custody on bail.

                                    2
      While Caradine was out of custody, he was arrested for a drug
offense. On September 30, 2021, the Mendocino County District
Attorney filed an information in case No. 21CR01759 (“Case 759”),
charging Caradine with possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine) for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), together
with sentencing enhancement allegations. To facilitate a plea
agreement, the information was later amended to include the charge of
transportation of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code
§ 11379, subd. (a)). The following was the agreed factual basis for the
amended charge (as set forth in a change of plea form): On August 22,
2021, Caradine transported, sold, or offered to sell a controlled
substance (methamphetamine), knowing it to be a controlled substance.
      On March 10, 2022, the parties agreed to a resolution of the three
cases. Specifically, in Case 759 Caradine agreed to plead no contest to
an amended charge of transportation of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine) for sale (serving as the principal count for a four-
year aggravated term); in Case 422 Caradine agreed to plead no contest
to a second degree burglary charge (serving as the subordinate count
for a concurrent three year middle term); and in Case 751 (failure to
appear conviction), Caradine was promised a consecutive 16-month
term (one-third of the middle term of two years (eight months) doubled
for the true finding of a prior strike allegation). The court dismissed
any remaining charges and sentence enhancements either alleged or
found to be true. Caradine also agreed to pay $1,171.30 in restitution
to the burglary victim in Case 422.

                                      3
         At sentencing on April 12, 2022, the trial court imposed the
promised sentences and ordered Caradine to pay the agreed victim
restitution. Caradine filed a notice of appeal in each case.
         Appellate counsel has filed a brief asking us to independently
review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Appellate
counsel has averred Caradine was advised of his right to file a
supplemental brief, but he has not filed such a brief. Having
independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues
that require further briefing and affirm the judgments in all three
cases.
                                DISPOSITION
         The judgments are affirmed in cases SCUKCRCR2020354221,
SCUKCRCR2020367511, and 21CR01759.

                                      4
                                 _________________________
                                 Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Tucher, P.J.

_________________________
Fujisaki, J.

A165088/People v. Caradine

                             5