Court Opinion

ID: 9352515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 20:03:30.18217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:39.948035
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/6/23 P. v. Morales CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                       SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          H049793
                                                                     (Monterey County
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  Super. Ct. No. 20CR004790)

           v.

 SAMUEL EMMITT MORALES,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Samuel Emmitt Morales appeals from a four-year sentence imposed
after he pleaded no contest to threatening a witness and admitted he had suffered a prior
strike conviction. Upon defendant’s timely appeal, we appointed counsel to represent
him in this court. Appellate counsel filed a brief stating the case and facts but raising no
issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf,
and he has not done so.
         We have reviewed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable
appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440–441.) We include here a
brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case as well as the conviction
and punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.) Finding no
arguable issue, we will affirm the judgment.
                                  I.     TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
         According to testimony from the preliminary hearing, a Salinas police officer
monitoring a protest in June 2020 observed defendant “chanting things along the lines of
‘Fuck the police,’ ‘Let’s burn this shit down,’ as well as, ‘Let’s go looting. I want some
free stuff.’ ” Defendant was in a car with a woman. Defendant was on parole, and was
later arrested at the parole office. While in custody, defendant communicated a number
of threats to the woman who had been with him at the protest. Defendant called her a
“Rata” (Spanish for rat) and threatened violence against her.
       Defendant was held to answer and charged by information with threatening a
witness (Pen. Code, § 140, subd. (a)); three counts of attempted criminal threats (Pen.
Code, §§ 664, 422, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor inciting a riot (Pen. Code, § 404.6,
subd. (a)). The information alleged defendant had suffered one prior strike conviction
(Pen. Code, § 1170.12).
       As part of a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to threatening a
witness (Pen. Code, § 140, subd. (a)) and admitted the prior strike conviction in return for
a sentence of no more than four years in prison. The agreement allowed defendant to
bring a motion to strike the prior strike conviction, which the trial court denied. (See
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) The agreement also included
a waiver of appellate rights.
       The trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison, consisting of the low
term for threatening a witness, doubled because of the prior strike conviction. (Pen.
Code, §§ 140, subd. (a); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) The court dismissed the remaining
counts on the prosecution’s motion. The court imposed a $1,200 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) and a suspended $1,200 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45); a $40
court operations assessment (§ 1465.8); and a $30 court facilities funding assessment
(Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant received 492 days of presentence custody credit, based
on 246 actual days and 246 days’ conduct credit (§ 4019).1

       1 While this appeal was pending, defendant’s appointed counsel moved in the trial
court to strike all fines and fees. (Citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1171.)
The trial court denied the motion.
                                             2
We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue.
                            II.   DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

                                    3
                                  ____________________________________
                                  Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________
Greenwood, P. J.

____________________________
Lie, J.

H049793 - The People v. Morales