P. v. Melton
Filed 1/11/13
P. v. Melton CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
KEVIN D. MELTON,
Defendant and
Appellant.
D061903
(Super. Ct. No. SCD234647)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Affirmed.
In June 2011, Kevin D. Melton
was charged with two counts of inflicting
corporal injury to a spouse or roommate and one count each of assault by
means likely to produce great bodily injury, false imprisonment and disobeying
a court order. Melton pleaded guilty to
one count of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse or roommate. The court subsequently dismissed the balance
of the complaint.
At sentencing, the trial court noted Melton had multiple
illnesses, but "still avail[ed] himself to committing these criminal
offenses." It granted Melton three
years of formal probation, under various terms and conditions, including the serving
of 270 days in custody, and ordered him to report to court on October 13, 2011,
for execution of custody. The court
continued Melton's reporting date for medical reasons, and later vacated the
reporting date to allow Melton to bring a motion to withdraw his plea. In light of the proposed motion, the court
declared it would be a conflict for the alternate public defender to remain on
the case, relieved him, and appointed counsel from the Office of Assigned
Counsel to review the case for a possible motion to withdraw the plea. In March 2012, new counsel concluded that
grounds did not exist to file a motion to withdraw the plea. Nonetheless, after considering information
about Melton's medical condition, the trial court stayed the 270 days of
custody and continued him on probation.
A few days later, Melton was arrested at the South Bay
Probation Office as a result of a number of probation violations, including
failing to report any change of address to the probation officer, testing
positive for cocaine and failing to enroll in a
rehabilitation program.
The trial court summarily revoked Melton's probation and set an order to
show cause hearing. At the hearing, the
court concluded that Melton admitted the probation violation through
counsel. It formally revoked but
reinstated probation on the same terms previously imposed, remanded Melton to
the custody of the sheriff for 270 days with credit for 133 days of custody,
and authorized Melton's release to a residential rehabilitation program.
Melton filed a notice of appeal challenging the validity
of his plea. He submitted a certificate
of probable cause, stating, "I was un[der] the influence of
[narcotics]. I had seizure. Had brain surgery for brain [aneurism]. Was not aware of pleading guilty. Att[orney] was fired. Everything (sentencing is invalid tried to
ask judge to reconsider plea. Judge did
not even address on 7
Feb 2012. Just suspend
270 days [incarcerated]) which I [am] serving now." The trial court granted the certificate of
probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the
facts and proceedings below. He
presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record
for error as mandated by
(Wende). Under Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders),
counsel listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether (1) Melton knew his
rights and properly waived them before he pleaded guilty, (2) medication
prevented him from understanding the change of plea proceedings, (3) his
attorney was fired, (4) he had a meritorious basis to bring a motion to
withdraw his plea, (5) the court imposed lawful fines and fees, (6) the court
imposed proper probation conditions, (7) the court properly advised him of and whether
he waived his Morrissey-Vickers
rights at the probation violation hearing (Morrissey
v. Brewer (1972) 408 U.S. 471; People
v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451), (8) sufficient evidence showed that he
violated probation, and (9) he properly admitted a probation violation.
We granted Melton permission to file a brief on his own
behalf. He has not responded. Our review of the record pursuant to
listed by counsel pursuant to Anders,
has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Melton on
this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
