People v. Hall CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD233892
- Trial judge
- Eugenia A. Eyherabide
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Alex C. McDonald, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court accepted Hall's guilty plea to bank robbery and attempted bank robbery, striking one of his two prior strike convictions and sentencing him to 17 years and four months. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea and waiver of rights“The trial court advised Hall of his constitutional rights and he properly waived them. The trial court also advised Hall of the consequences of his guilty plea.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Competency to stand trial and enter plea“Based on Hall's appropriate and lucid responses, there was no need for the trial court to query Hall any further regarding the medication or his mental health.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Sufficiency of evidence“Hall's guilty plea "waive[d] any right to raise questions regarding the evidence, including its sufficiency or admissibility, and this is true whether or not the subsequent claim of evidentiary error is founded on constitutional violations. . . . "” | de novo | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Striking of prior strike convictions“the trial court abused its discretion by striking only one of Hall's prior strike convictions, and (5) the trial court gave proper reasons for declining to strike both strike priors.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must review the record for error when no arguable issues are found.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel may file a brief identifying possible but not arguable issues.
- relied: People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914 — A defendant's lucid responses in open court can demonstrate competency and understanding of the plea.
- relied: People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116 — A guilty plea waives the right to challenge the sufficiency or admissibility of evidence.
The appellate opinion: sound — sound
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Hall's guilty plea to bank robbery and attempted bank robbery with two prior strike admissions, struck one of the two prior strikes after considering his mental health history, and sentenced him to 17 years, four months. On a Wende appeal with no argument for reversal, the Court of Appeal addressed Hall's pro se statements as competency and sufficiency claims, rejected both, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea without further inquiry into Hall's competency or medication, with advisement and waiver of constitutional rights and advisement of plea consequences“Based on Hall's appropriate and lucid responses, there was no need for the trial court to query Hall any further regarding the medication or his mental health.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that Hall responded appropriately in open court, stated his medication did not impair his understanding, counsel concurred, and Hall had been found competent by a forensic specialist shortly before and by the court for the sentencing hearing; nothing in the described record raised a doubt requiring further inquiry. The citation to Ravaux for the proposition that a record showing the defendant was cognizant supports acceptance of the plea is apt. |
Rejection of Hall's implied sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge as waived by the guilty plea“Hall's guilty plea "waive[d] any right to raise questions regarding the evidence, including its sufficiency or admissibility” | de novo | correct | agree with court A guilty plea admits every element of the offense and forecloses a sufficiency challenge; the court correctly applied Turner. Hall's statements about leaving money on the counter and believing he worked bank security go to factual guilt and mental state, matters conceded by the plea. |
Romero ruling striking only one of two prior strike convictions and imposing the midterm“After considering the defense motion to strike the priors plus the attachments, the probation report, various psychological evaluations, competency papers, the facts and age of the prior bank robberies, the facts of this case, and Hall's mental health issues, the trial court struck the 1999 prior conviction.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion describes a trial court that weighed the relevant factors (nature and age of priors, current offense facts, mental health) and gave partial relief; declining to strike a 2003 bank robbery strike for a defendant with a documented malingering history is within the range of reasonable sentencing choices. The court did not discuss Romero or Carmony by name, but Wende review does not require a written analysis of each listed issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court must independently review the entire record when appointed counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- relied: People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914 — A record showing a defendant was cognizant and responsive at the plea hearing supports the validity of the plea despite claims of medication or mental health impairment.
- relied: People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116 — A guilty plea waives any right to challenge the sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence, including on constitutional grounds.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion performs the required independent Wende review, addresses the two contentions fairly drawn from Hall's pro se filing, and supports each conclusion with apt authority. It does not cite Romero or Carmony in connection with the partial strike ruling, but given the detailed description of the factors the trial court weighed, that omission does not undermine the result.
Opinion
Filed 1/13/15 P. v. Hall CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065921
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD233892)
JON A. HALL, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
An information was filed alleging appellant, Jon A. Hall, robbed a bank and attempted to rob another bank. It was also alleged that Hall had convictions in 2003 and 1999 for bank robbery. After Hall pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, the court appointed two forensic mental health specialists to examine him. Both determined Hall was sane at the time he committed the offenses. One specialist found Hall " 'has a history of malingering' " and noted a " 'tendency to exaggerate, distort or emphasize psychological symptoms to obtain more desirable treatment or excuse his behavior appears to be an underlying theme throughout his records.' "
Based on differing opinions regarding Hall's competency to stand trial, the trial court found Hall incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to be sent to Patton State Hospital. There, the evaluators found Hall was malingering. The Medical Director at Patton certified Hall's competency and the trial court later signed an order declaring Hall competent to stand trial.
The following month, Hall pleaded guilty to both counts and admitted the allegations. After another forensic mental health specialist found Hall competent, the trial court issued an order finding Hall mentally competent for the probation and sentencing hearing.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel asked the court to strike both of Hall's prior strike convictions in consideration of Hall's mental illness; or in the alternative, if the court was not inclined to strike both strikes, counsel asked the court to strike one of the strikes and to sentence Hall to the low term on both counts. After considering the defense motion to strike the priors plus the attachments, the probation report, various psychological evaluations, competency 2 papers, the facts and age of the prior bank robberies, the facts of this case, and Hall's mental health issues, the trial court struck the 1999 prior conviction. The court then sentenced Hall to the midterm for a total term of 17 years, four months.
Hall timely appealed based on the plea and on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea and obtained a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. She presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), she listed as possible but not arguable issues, whether (1) Hall was properly advised of the consequences of his guilty plea, (2) Hall was advised of and waived his constitutional rights before he pleaded guilty, (3) the trial court should have queried Hall further at the change of plea hearing, (4) the trial court abused its discretion by striking only one of Hall's prior strike convictions, and (5) the trial court gave proper reasons for declining to strike both strike priors.
We granted Hall permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He responded, stating that during the attempted robbery of Chase, he walked out of the bank and left the money on the counter. He also stated that during the Wells Fargo robbery, he took the money believing he worked bank security for the Treasury Department. Hall failed to make any argument showing he is entitled to 3 a reversal; however, based on his statements, he appears to be arguing lack of competency at the change of plea hearing and insufficiency of the evidence. We reject these claims.
Hall entered his plea in open court and responded appropriately to the court's questions. Although Hall stated he had taken medication within the last 24 hours, he indicated there was nothing about the medication that would prevent him from understanding the court proceedings. Counsel concurred. Based on Hall's appropriate and lucid responses, there was no need for the trial court to query Hall any further regarding the medication or his mental health. The trial court advised Hall of his constitutional rights and he properly waived them. The trial court also advised Hall of the consequences of his guilty plea. The record does not support a claim that Hall was anything other than fully cognizant of his actions and statements in making his plea. (People v. Ravaux (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 914, 917-918.) As to any claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, Hall's guilty plea "waive[d] any right to raise questions regarding the evidence, including its sufficiency or admissibility, and this is true whether or not the subsequent claim of evidentiary error is founded on constitutional violations. . . . " (People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125.)
Our review of the entire record under Wende, including the possible issues listed by counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hall on this appeal.
4 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. RAVAUX D047496 · 2006-08-16
- People v. Turner Crim. 12781 · 1985-05-30
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12