legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Carter CA3

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Carter CA3
By
05:19:2017

Filed 3/21/17 P. v. Carter 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY MAURICE CARTER,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082054

(Super. Ct. No. 15F06797)





Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Maurice Carter has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In November 2015, Christopher Shippen was a detective with the Sacramento Police Department assigned to gang investigations. On November 4, 2015, Shippen was on patrol in the Oak Park area of Sacramento in response to ongoing violent crime that had been occurring in the area. Shippen was patrolling with his partner in an unmarked black SUV. They were wearing tactical police vests with the word “Police” on the front and back. They were also wearing full-duty belts with their department issued badge on them.
Around 5:45 p.m., Shippen and his partner decided to speak to defendant after they had driven past him three times while he was standing on the corner of 44th and Roosevelt. When Shippen walked up to defendant, he identified himself as “Sacramento PD.” Defendant was wearing baggie jeans and a baggie sweatshirt capable of concealing a weapon. According to Shippen, defendant had a very nervous demeanor and began to immediately back away from him. As defendant did so, he reached toward his waistband with his right hand. Out of concern for his safety, Shippen grabbed defendant’s hand as he simultaneously asked defendant whether he had a gun. After defendant indicated that he did have a gun, Shippen and his partner put him in a control hold. A patdown search of defendant revealed a loaded semiautomatic .380-caliber handgun in his waistband. Defendant admitted that he knew he was not allowed to possess a firearm because he had a prior felony conviction.
Defendant was charged by complaint with being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); unless otherwise set forth, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.) It was also alleged that defendant had a prior serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)) that qualifies as a strike under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5, defendant pleaded no contest to the charged offense and admitted the allegation he had a strike prior. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of two years eight months in prison. The court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. (Id. at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



HULL , J.



We concur:



BLEASE , Acting P. J.



NICHOLSON , J.





Description Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Maurice Carter has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 22 views. Averaging 22 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale