Court Opinion

ID: 9914960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 20:03:31.895022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:44.776349
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/3/24 P. v. Hedrington CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F085738
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                              (Super. Ct. No. MCR064476)
                    v.

 ESMOND BENITO HEDRINGTON,                                                                OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. D. Lynn
Collet, Judge.
         Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

         * Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
                         STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
       This appeal is from a final judgment following a guilty plea which disposed of all
issues between the parties. (Pen. Code § 1237, subd. (a).)1
                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE
       On February 28, 2020, a preliminary hearing was held in Department 23 of the
Madera County Superior Court after which Hedrington was held to answer.
       On March 3, 2020, the District Attorney filed an information charging Hedrington
with sale or transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 13379,
subd. (a); count 1) and possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine)
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); count 2). It was further alleged as to counts 1 and 2 that
Hedrington had suffered a prior conviction in 1984 that qualified as a strike with the
meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12.
       On July 22, 2022, Hedrington waived his constitutional rights, pled guilty to
attempted possession for sale of a controlled substance (§ 664; Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11378), and admitted the strike allegation. He did so with the promise of a two-year
prison sentence.
       On August 18, 2022, the superior court heard and denied Hedrington’s Marsden2
motion. The attorney appearing with him noted that he was not the attorney who
appeared when Hedrington pled guilty. That attorney was absent due to a medical issue.
Hedrington asserted that counsel had failed to file section 1538.5 and 1385 motions, as
requested. Counsel believed that there was not a good faith basis for making a motion to
suppress. In addition, Hedrington’s Romero3 motion was denied. The court denied the
Marsden motion. Back in open court, Hedrington indicated that he wished to withdraw

       1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

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

       3 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

                                            2.
his plea. The court then reconsidered the Marsden motion and granted it. The court then
appointed the Madera Alternate Defense.
       On December 21, 2023, the court appointed Alex Martin to investigate whether
Hedrington had a basis for making a motion to withdraw his plea. On January 17, 2023,
Martin was relieved because of a conflict and Sam Luton was appointed.
       On February 2, 2023, defense counsel made a motion to dismiss under
section 1385, subdivision (c)(3) and consider granting probation or imposing a sixteen-
month sentence. The superior court denied the defense motion, finding that it did not
have authority under section 1385, subdivision (c)(3) because a strike is not an
enhancement and because Hedrington had agreed to a two-year sentence. The court
sentenced Hedrington to the mid-term of two years and awarded total presentence credit
of 437 days. The court assessed various appropriate fines and fees.
       Hedrington filed a timely notice of appeal purporting to challenge the validity of
his plea. Hedrington requested a certificate of probable cause based on misadvice from
original counsel and the trial court’s conclusion that it lacked discretion to modify the
strike. The superior court denied the request.
                               STATEMENT OF FACTS4
       On August 26, 2019, Madera County Deputy Sheriff Majeski stopped Hedrington
for driving in the middle of the road. When the deputy made contact, he observed a
spoon in plain sight containing a white crystalline substance that appeared to be
methamphetamine. A subsequent K-9 search turned up a clear plastic baggie containing
methamphetamine in the center console. The deputy also found a small digital scale.
                            APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
       Hedrington’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that
summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the

       4 The facts are drawn from the February 28, 2020, preliminary hearing transcript.

                                             3.
record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening
brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Hedrington was advised
he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on August 30, 2023, we invited
Hedrington to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
       Penal Code section 1237.5 states that no appeal may be taken from a plea of guilty
or no contest without first filing a written statement “showing reasonable constitutional,
jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings” and the trial
court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal. (§ 1237.5,
subds. (a) & (b); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1)(A).) Here, the trial court
denied Hedrington’s request for a certificate of probable cause. A trial court’s denial of
an application for a certificate of probable cause must be reviewed by a petition for writ
of mandate. (People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676.) Hedrington has not
petitioned for nor obtained such writ relief, and thus issues concerning the validity of his
plea are not cognizable.
       With no certificate of probable cause, our review is limited “to issues that do not
require a certificate of probable cause.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3); see
rule 8.304(b)(2) [listing the issues that do not require certificate of probable cause].)
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Hedrington.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                              4.