Filed 3/2/18 P. v. Martinez CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDWARD DANIEL MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067883

(Super.Ct.No. FMB1400488)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Affirmed.
Kevin Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Edward Daniel Martinez pled guilty to trespass by threat (Pen. Code, § 601) and resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The court placed him on formal probation for a period of three years and required him to apply for the mental health court program. Defendant subsequently had his probation revoked and reinstated several times, for failing to comply with his probation conditions. He was also accepted into the mental health court program, but was later terminated for refusing to take his prescribed medication. The court eventually terminated defendant’s probation and imposed total terms of 16 months and 60 days. The court also awarded him custody credits, which resulted in him being released.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea. He also challenged the validity of the plea and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied. Appellate counsel subsequently filed an amended notice of appeal on defendant’s behalf, which stated the same challenges and allegations. The court again denied the request for certificate of probable cause. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2014, in a felony complaint, the San Bernardino County District Attorney charged defendant with criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a), count 1), exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1), count 2), resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1), count 3), and disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4), count 4).
At a pre-preliminary hearing, defense counsel expressed doubt as to defendant’s competence to stand trial. Defendant objected and expressed a desire to file a Marsden motion. The trial court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered a competency exam. (§ 1368.) The court did not act on defendant’s Marsden request, since it suspended the proceedings. A psychologist diagnosed defendant as suffering from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. On October 24, 2014, the trial court found defendant incompetent to stand trial. Defendant was placed in a competency restoration program in the West Valley Detention Center. He was then transferred to the state hospital for treatment.
On April 3, 2015, the trial court found defendant to be mentally competent and reinstated the criminal proceedings. Defendant requested a Marsden hearing. The court held a hearing and denied the Marsden motion
On April 14, 2015, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to count 3 and one count of trespass by threat (§ 601, count 5), which was added by interlineation. The parties stipulated to the police reports as a factual basis for the plea. The court dismissed the remaining counts and placed defendant on probation for a period of three years. It awarded 242 days of custody credits, which included his time in treatment. The court also ordered him to apply for the mental health court treatment program (the mental health court program).
On multiple occasions thereafter, the court revoked defendant’s probation for failing to appear at probation review hearings. However, the court reinstated his probation each time. On August 10, 2015, defendant was accepted into the mental health court program. Thus, the court added probation terms requiring him to participate and take all prescribed medications.
On December 21, 2015, the court revoked defendant’s probation for failing to appear for a mental health review. It reinstated defendant’s probation on January 6, 2016.
On March 8, 2016, the court revoked defendant’s probation after he was charged with contempt of court in a separate case. Defendant denied the probation violation. At a hearing on April 12, 2016, after allowing defendant to speak, the court declared a doubt as to defendant’s mental competence, suspended the proceedings, and ordered an evaluation. A psychologist evaluated defendant and determined that he was not competent to stand trial. It was noted that defendant refused to take medication. A second doctor evaluated defendant and agreed that he was not mentally competent to stand trial. The doctor also determined that he met the criteria for prescribing involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications, which could restore him to trial competency.
The court held a competency hearing on July 8, 2016. After hearing defendant testify, the court found him competent and reinstated the proceedings. The court placed him back in the mental health court program and ordered him to comply with the doctors and take his prescribed medications.
On October 31, 2016, defendant was remanded into custody for not being in compliance with his probation and for testing positive for methamphetamine use. The court imposed a sanction for a few days and then released him back into the program.
On February 27, 2017, the court terminated defendant from the mental health court program, since he was noncompliant for failing to take his medications.
On March 6, 2017, two days prior to his sentencing hearing, defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, based on the sentence or other matters that occurred after the plea. He also challenged the validity of the plea and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the court denied.
On March 8, 2017, the court terminated probation and imposed the low term of 16 months on count 5 and 60 days on count 3. The court also awarded 493 days of custody credits against the 16-month sentence and 60 days of credit against the 60-day jail sentence. Thus, defendant was released that day since he had served all his time.
On March 13, 2017, appellate counsel filed an amended notice of appeal on defendant’s behalf, which stated the same challenges and allegations as defendant’s original notice of appeal. The court denied the request for certificate of probable cause again.
ANALYSIS
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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case and the following potential arguable issues: (1) whether there was good cause to permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea; (2) whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s Marsden motion, after the court declared him to be competent to stand trial; (3) whether the court erred in finding him incompetent to stand trial in its initial ruling; (4) whether defendant’s appointed counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel; and (5) whether the court erred in revoking defendant’s probation and terminating his participation in the mental health court program.
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 independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now concluded our 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.