P. v. Dumont

 

 

 

Filed 1/23/14  P. v. Dumont 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NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(El Dorado>)

----

 

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   RALPH EUGENE DUMONT,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C073833   (Super. Ct. No. P12CRF0264)

 

 

 

 

            This
case comes to us pursuant to href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 (Wende).  Having reviewed the record as required by >Wende, we affirm the order denying
defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. 


            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.)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            On
June 11,
2012, defendant Ralph Eugene Dumont pleaded
no contest to making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] and the trial court
granted him three years of formal probation with 90 days in county jail.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]  Defendant was advised the
offense was a strike offense and of the consequences of having a strike
conviction.  On November 6, 2012, the probation officer filed a petition to revoke probation,
alleging defendant had violated probation by committing a battery.  On December 11, 2012, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea.  Defendant filed another motion to withdraw
his plea on February 25,
2013. 
On March 15,
2013, after a contested hearing, the trial
court denied the motions. 

            Defendant
filed a notice of appeal on
April 5, 2013, appealing the order entered on March 15, 2013.  His request for a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause was
denied.  He filed a second notice of
appeal on May 14,
2013, indicating he was appealing the June 11, 2012 judgment, the March 15, 2013 order, and
the April 5,
2013 order. 
The trial court notified defendant the notice of appeal was untimely as
to the June 11,
2012 judgment.  Accordingly, the notice of appeal was marked
“Received But Not Filed” with respect to that judgment.  As to the other orders, defendant’s request
for a certificate of probable cause was denied. 


            We
appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.  Counsel requested we deem the April 5, 2013 notice of appeal as though it had been constructively filed as to
the June 11,
2012 judgment.  We denied the request. 

            Counsel
filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and, pursuant to >Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting the court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.  Defendant was advised by counsel of the right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening
brief.  Defendant filed a supplemental
brief raising a number of allegations that appear related to the validity of
the underlying plea and the June 11, 2012
judgment.  That matter is not properly
before us on appeal.  We have undertaken
an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, and we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

            The
judgment (order denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea) is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                              BUTZ                            ,
J.

 

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

          BLEASE                       , Acting P. J.

 

 

 

          ROBIE                          , J.