Filed 12/5/18 P. v. Gideon CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge. Affirmed.

William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Daniel Morris Gideon was charged by felony complaint with two counts of submitting forged documents in a court proceeding. (Pen. Code,[1] § 132, counts 1 & 2). The complaint also alleged that defendant violated his probation by reason of the charged counts. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to both counts. A trial court placed him on probation for a period of three years, under specified terms.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, along with a request for certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. Subsequently, appellate counsel filed an amended notice of appeal on defendant’s behalf. We affirm the judgment.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 18, 2017, defendant was charged by felony complaint with submitting forged documents in a court proceeding. (§ 132, counts 1 & 2.) The complaint also alleged that defendant violation his probation.

On October 24, 2017, the court declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency pursuant to section 1368 and suspended the proceedings. On January 3, 2018, the court found defendant mentally incompetent to stand trial.

On March 2, 2018, the court heard defendant’s motion to substitute counsel, pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. It denied the motion. On March 7, the court committed defendant to the custody of Liberty Healthcare for treatment.

On June 11, 2018, upon reviewing doctors’ reports, the court found that defendant’s mental competency had been restored. Defendant then entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to both counts. Before accepting the plea, the court asked defendant if he initialed the plea form, discussed it with his attorney, and understood everything on it. The court reviewed his constitutional rights and asked if he understood he would be giving up these rights. Defendant confirmed that he understood all the constitutional rights he was waiving, the nature of the charges, and the penalties and punishments. Defendant affirmed that no one had made him any other promises. He also affirmed that he understood that if he was not a United States citizen, he could be deported as a result of the conviction. Defendant entered his plea and admitted that he violated his probation. The court found that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the plea and the admission, and that there was a factual basis for both. The parties submitted. The court then placed defendant on probation for a period of three years, under the agreed upon conditions.

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

MILLER

J.

SLOUGH

J.