Court Opinion

ID: 9381355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 19:02:52.750572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:31.860313
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/22/23 P. v. McCraken CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B317688

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. MA075645)
         v.

GARY LOYD McCRAKEN,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Charles A. Chung, Judge, and Lisa Strassner,
Temporary Judge (pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21).
Affirmed.
      Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
     On May 1, 2019, the District Attorney of Los Angeles
County filed an information charging defendant Gary Loyd
McCraken with assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd.
(a)(2)1) (count 1); two counts of assault with a deadly weapon
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) (counts 2 and 3); dissuading a witness from
testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1)) (count 4); and spousal battery
(§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) (count 5). The information alleged defendant
personally used a firearm in committing count 1 (§ 12022.5,
subd. (a)) and a deadly and dangerous weapon in committing
counts 2 and 3 (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
       On June 27, 2019, the trial court granted the prosecution’s
motion to amend the information by interlineation to add count
6—assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury
(§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Defendant then entered a conditional nolo
contendere plea to count 6 pursuant to which his conviction
would be reduced to a misdemeanor for time served if he
completed the following conditions: stay away from the victim (a
previously entered criminal protective order was to remain in full
force and effect), pay restitution to the victim, enroll in and
complete 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling, and not have
any new contacts with law enforcement or new cases filed.2 If
defendant failed to complete those conditions, his plea would be

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

2     Because defendant pleaded nolo contendere, we omit a
recitation of the facts underlying the charged offenses.

                                2
an open plea.3 The court ordered defendant to return to court on
September 17, 2019, with proof of enrollment and progress in
domestic violence counseling. Sentencing was set for
June 24, 2020.
       Defendant failed to appear for the September 17, 2019,
hearing. The trial court issued a no bail bench warrant for
defendant.
       At a hearing on September 8, 2021, the trial court (the Hon.
Lisa Strassner) stated that defendant, who was in custody, had
violated his conditional plea agreement. He failed to appear for
almost two years after his plea and had “pled to a case” in a
different state two months after his plea thereby violating his
plea. It further stated that the court (the Hon. Charles A.
Chung) had advised defendant that he faced a maximum
sentence if he violated the terms of his conditional plea.
       Defense counsel responded that the nature of the
conditional plea had not been explained to defendant and
defendant believed he was pleading to a misdemeanor and would
be placed on probation. Further, defendant did not realize state
prison was a possible consequence of violating the plea.
Accordingly, defendant requested to withdraw his plea. Among
other things, defendant stated that he had been advised that he
had “an exclusive right to withdraw [the] plea” any time before
sentencing. The trial court denied the request.

3     “An open plea is one under which the defendant is not
offered any promises. [Citation.] In other words, the defendant
‘plead[s] unconditionally, admitting all charges and exposing
himself to the maximum possible sentence if the court later chose
to impose it.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th
374, 381, fn. 4.)

                                3
       Based on its colloquy with defendant, the trial court stated
its belief that defense counsel would be filing a motion to
withdraw defendant’s plea. Defense counsel affirmed the court’s
belief, and the court set the matter for hearing.
       On September 28, 2021, defendant filed a written motion to
withdraw his plea on the ground that the plea was not knowing,
intelligent, or voluntary. Defendant alleged his plea counsel did
not explain the charges to him, the consequences of the plea, or
the consequences of violating the plea agreement.
       The trial court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to
withdraw his plea at which defendant and plea counsel testified.
The court read the reporter’s transcript of defendant’s plea
hearing into the record. The court denied defendant’s motion.
       The trial court then sentenced defendant to three years in
state prison, awarding him 477 days of custody credit. Pursuant
to the plea agreement, the court dismissed the remaining counts.
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.
On October 27, 2022, counsel filed an opening brief in which
counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that
we follow the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, 441.
       On November 14, 2022, we notified defendant that
appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable
issues and he had 30 days within which to independently brief
any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us
to consider. On December 12, 2022, defendant filed a
supplemental brief that does not contain any coherent, legally
cognizable contentions or arguments.
       On January 19, 2023, we granted defendant’s request to file
a second supplemental brief. That supplemental brief also does

                                4
not contain any coherent, legally cognizable contentions or
arguments. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that
defendant’s appointed counsel has fully complied with his
responsibilities in the instant appeal and no arguable issues
exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

                        DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        KIM, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                                 5