Court Opinion

ID: 9840920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 17:04:10.443594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:57.255075
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Wilde 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                  C097494

           v.                                                                    (Super. Ct. Nos. 20CF01073,
                                                                                         22CF01057)
 KYLE MATTHEW WILDE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Kyle Matthew Wilde asked 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).) Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Having
reviewed the record and defendant’s supplemental arguments, we conclude defendant’s
claims challenge the validity of his pleas or address matters occurring prior to the pleas,
and hence are barred because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, and there
is no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We will affirm the judgment.
                                                             I
         This appeal involves two cases. In case No. 20CF01073 (the first case), defendant
was charged with committing a lewd or lascivious act on H.H., his cousin’s 12-year-old

                                                             1
daughter. The charge was based on an incident in February 2020, in which defendant
touched H.H.’s chest and abdomen and told her to spread her legs while he moved his
hand towards her vagina. Defendant initially entered a plea of not guilty in June 2020,
and subsequently moved to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S.
806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta). Defendant’s Faretta motion was denied.
       In case No. 22CF01057 (the second case), defendant was charged with dissuading
a witness by force or threat, stalking, solicitation of others to commit the crime of
dissuading a witness, and disobeying a court order. It was further alleged with respect to
the first three counts that defendant committed those offenses while released from
custody on bail or on his own recognizance. The charges were based on social media
posts made by defendant in February 2022, a month before H.H. and her mother were
scheduled to testify in the first case. In one of the posts, defendant provided their names
and address and told his followers that if they “wanted to talk to H.H. and her mother,
then they could be contacted at their home.” Defendant initially entered a plea of not
guilty to the charges.
       In June 2022, prior to the preliminary hearing in the second case, defendant moved
to remove and replace his appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d
118 (Marsden). After holding a Marsden hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
       In August 2022, the cases were consolidated for purposes of trial and defendant
waived the right to a jury trial. The same month, defendant entered no contest pleas to
the charge of lewd or lascivious conduct in the first case and the charge of stalking in the
second case. In exchange for these pleas, defendant was promised dismissal of the
remaining charges and special allegations, subject to a waiver under People v. Harvey
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. With respect to sentencing, defendant expressly agreed that the
trial court “may consider any fact discussed in the probation report as an aggravating or
mitigating factor.” Defendant also checked a box on the plea form stating: “I understand

                                              2
as a term and condition of this plea that I waive any direct appeal I may have, absent any
appeal to sentencing error.”
       At the plea hearing, defendant acknowledged checking the various boxes on the
form, including the foregoing. The trial court also asked defendant whether he agreed the
probation report could be used for aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He
responded: “Yes. I agree.” Defendant received all required advisements and entered all
appropriate waivers prior to entering his pleas. He also stipulated to the probation report
as the factual basis for his pleas. The trial court accepted defendant’s no contest pleas,
found him guilty of those crimes, and dismissed the remaining charges and allegations in
accordance with the agreement.
       The trial court also ordered a psychological evaluation pursuant to Penal Code
section 288.1.1 After that report was filed, and prior to the scheduled sentencing hearing,
defendant submitted three documents that were received by the trial court: (1) a letter to
the court; (2) a declaration indicating a desire to withdraw his stipulation to any
aggravating or mitigating circumstances set forth in the probation report; and (3) a
declaration objecting to the psychological evaluation and arguing for a mitigated
sentence.2

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 In defendant’s supplemental brief, he asks this court to augment the record to include
these documents. We deny this informal request for two reasons. First, “informal
requests for augmentation made after a reasonable time has expired from receiving the
record on appeal, and particularly as late as those contained in briefs, will be denied
absent a strong showing of unusual or unavoidable circumstances giving rise to the
delay.” (People v. Preslie (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 486, 492.) Defendant has made no such
showing. Second, defendant’s supplemental brief relies on the documents to challenge
the validity of his plea, something he cannot do without a certificate of probable cause.
The documents are therefore irrelevant to the issues he may properly raise in this appeal.

                                              3
       At the start of the sentencing hearing, the trial court asked defendant whether he
was requesting to withdraw his plea. Defendant said he was not. He wanted to modify
the agreement to withdraw his stipulation to the trial court’s ability to use the probation
report for aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The People opposed this
modification. After the trial court explained to defendant that the stipulation was part of
the plea agreement and could not be removed without defendant withdrawing his plea,
defendant stated: “I’ll keep the plea as it is. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . I withdraw the objection.”
       The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to a
determinate prison term of nine years. The trial court also imposed various fines and
fees. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
                                                II
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of
the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief, arguing: (1) the appeal waiver in the plea
agreement is null and void as a matter of law; (2) defendant’s trial counsel provided
constitutionally deficient assistance by failing to adequately explain the risks of
stipulating to circumstances in aggravation contained in the probation report; (3) the trial
court exerted undue influence over defendant by giving him an “ultimatum,” i.e., “either
maintain the stipulation or withdraw the plea;” and (4) this court should review the
Marsden proceedings.
       Defendant’s claims challenge the validity of the pleas or address matters occurring
prior to the pleas, and hence they are barred because he did not obtain a certificate of
probable cause. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379;
People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790.) Even if defendant does not frame the
issues in that manner, we assess the effect of defendant’s claims. (See People v. Emery

                                                4
(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 560, 564-565.) To the extent his claims challenge the validity of
his respective pleas or are unrelated to matters occurring after the pleas, they are barred
by his failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause. (Id. at p. 562.)
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                      /S/
                                                   MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
HULL, Acting P. J.

    /S/
HORST, J.*

* Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                               5