Court Opinion

ID: 9919662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 21:03:13.108147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:14.305197
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Taplin CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                          G062284

           v.                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 11NF1700)

 GARRETT EDWARD TAPLIN,                                                  OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan
S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
              We appointed counsel to represent Garrett Edward Taplin on appeal.
Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her
client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf.
              Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that
sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. (Id. at
p. 438.) Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the
entire record. (Ibid.) When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende
proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail.
(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.)
              Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the
court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to an
issue that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel questioned whether the trial court
had jurisdiction to order correction of Taplin’s criminal record to reflect his conviction in
Orange County Superior Court case No. C-50346 for one count of violation of Penal
Code section 288, subdivision (a) (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code,
unless otherwise indicated).
              We gave Taplin 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Taplin
filed a supplemental brief, and we address his claims anon.
              We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under
Wende and Anders, and we found no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm the judgment.
                                          FACTS
              The sole issue is whether the trial court erred by declining to correct
Taplin’s criminal record and forward that correction to the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (DCR). Accordingly, we only briefly describe the underlying facts.

                                              2
              Following a jury trial in October 2012, a jury found Taplin guilty of sexual
penetration by a foreign object by force (§ 289, subd. (a)) (count 1); assault with intent to
commit rape (§ 220, subd. (a)) (count 2); and child annoyance with a prior sex conviction
(§647.6, subds. (a)(1), (c)(2)) (count 3). As to count 1, it was alleged Taplin suffered a
prior conviction for a violation of section 288, subdivision (a), a lewd and lascivious act
on a minor under the age of 14, on May 10, 1983, Orange County Superior Court case
No. C-50346, within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivisions (a) and (d), and did not
qualify for probation under section 1203.066, subdivision (c), and as a habitual sexual
offender under section 667.71, subdivision (a). The court found that prior conviction true
under section 667, subdivisions (a)(1), (d), and (e)(1), and section 1170.12, subdivisions
(b) and (c)(1).
              In November 2012, the trial court sentenced Taplin to 67 years to life in
prison as follows: count 2-the upper term of six years doubled to 12 years plus a
consecutive term of five years for the prison prior; and count 1-25 years to life doubled to
50 years to life. The court stayed the sentence on count 3 pursuant to section 654. We
affirmed the judgment in its entirety. (People v. Taplin (Jan. 30, 2014, G047672)
[nonpub. opn.].)
              In January 2023, Taplin filed a motion to correct the record transmitted to
the DCR. In the motion, Taplin alleged the trial court erroneously “found true beyond a
reasonable doubt that [he] had [s]uffered a prior felony conviction for violating . . .
[section] 288[, subdivision (a),] oral copulation[,] a conviction that [he] had never
suffered.” Further, “the information in [his] criminal history file incorrectly reflects that
[he] has been convicted of two counts for violating . . . [section] 288[,] subd[ivision]
(a)[,] [l]ewd [a]ct [with a] minor.” The amended information in the underlying matter
reflects a single violation of section 288, subdivision (a), on May 10, 1983, in Orange
County Superior Court case No. C-50346.

                                              3
              The trial court denied the motion stating the following: “[Taplin], in
pro[pria] per[sona], moves for correction of information transmitted to the [DCR].
Specifically, [he] contends that a) his criminal history erroneously reflects [he] sustained
convictions on two counts of violating . . . section 288[, subdivision] (a) and one count of
violating [former] section 288a and b) the trial record mistakenly reflects [he] suffered a
prior felony conviction for violating section 288a. [¶] [Taplin] does not set forth grounds
warranting the requested relief. The substance of [his] claim regarding the trial record
has been previously considered and denied by the court via habeas corpus. Pursuant to
Evidence Code [s]ection 452[, subdivision] [(d)], the [c]ourt takes judicial notice of its
own records in Orange County Superior Court case [No.] M-16918 wherein the substance
of [his] contention was considered and denied on March 3, 2017. Absent a change in the
applicable facts or the law, a court will not consider claims of error . . . . [¶] To the extent
[he] contends information maintained by the California Department of Justice pertaining
to [his] criminal history in [sic] inaccurate, [his] remedy is to seek review and possible
correction of the same by the Department of Justice and not from the court pursuant to
. . . section 1203.01. ([§] 11126.)” Taplin filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                        DISCUSSION
              In his supplemental brief, Taplin argues “neither the i[n]formation nor the
abstract of judgment by themselves can establish and find [him] guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt without an expressed legal, and correct finding by the trial court.” He
provides only a small portion of the sentencing transcript. The transcript does indicate
the “[section] 969 packet,” as well as Taplin’s “rap sheet,” were offered in evidence.
              A court may rely on various documents to establish a record of conviction.
The statute providing for admissibility of certified prison records as proof of a prior
conviction is essentially a hearsay exception, allowing, but not requiring, certified copies
of specified records to be used for truth of matter asserted therein, that is, that a person

                                               4
served a prison term for a prior conviction. Section 969b provides, in part, that “records
or copies of records of any state penitentiary, reformatory, county jail, city jail, or federal
penitentiary in which [defendant] has been imprisoned” may be used to establish prima
facie evidence of prior convictions, provided “such records or copies thereof have been
certified by the official custodian of such records.” These records are commonly referred
to as the “969 packet.”
              Here, after examining the documents submitted, the trial court found
“there’s been proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [Taplin] suffered those prior state
prison commitments under [section] 667.5[, subdivision] (b).” We conclude that based
on the record before us, there is no error for the trial court to correct.
              In terms of alleged incorrect information maintained by the Department of
Justice pertaining to Taplin’s criminal history, we agree with the trial court. Taplin
should seek review and possible correction of the information by the Department of
Justice.
                                        DISPOSITION
              The judgment is affirmed.

                                                    O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, J.

MOORE, J.

                                               5