California Court of Appeal Sep 11, 2024 No. E082946Unpublished
Filed 9/11/24 P. v. McQueen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082946
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI21001814)
WILLIS EARL MCQUEEN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shannon L.
Faherty, Judge. Affirmed.
Debra A. Postil, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Willis Earl McQueen pled
guilty to one count of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen.
Code1, § 245, subd. (a)(4).) The court issued a criminal protective order. Defendant
subsequently requested the court to modify the order to allow contact with the victim, and
the court denied the request.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
On May 24, 2021, defendant and his wife (the wife) were in a verbal argument
when he told her he was going to shoot her and bury her in the backyard. Defendant then
grabbed his shotgun and left for work. On June 23, 2021, defendant and the wife became
involved in another verbal argument, and defendant drove his car forward toward her and
pinned her against the garage with his car. The next day, the wife moved the couch to
block the front door so she could hear when defendant returned to the residence.
Defendant returned and shoved the door open. He then pulled a black semiautomatic
pistol from his waistband, pulled the slide of the pistol, and chambered a cartridge.
Defendant pointed it at the wife’s face and said, “Say something about my mother again
and I’ll kill you.” The couple’s four children (the children) were near the wife when he
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Because defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and there was no trial, this brief factual background is taken from the police report. 2
pointed the gun at her, and she said, “The kids are right here standing next to me, are you
really going to kill me right now?” Defendant left the residence.
On June 29, 2021, the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office filed a
complaint charging defendant with criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a), count 1) and
misdemeanor exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)). On July 27, 2021, at the
arraignment, the court issued a no-contact protective order, restraining defendant from
contact with the wife and the children pursuant to Section 136.2. Defendant requested
the order to be modified from no-contact to a no-negative-contact order, since he had
been married to the wife for 13 years, they had four children together, and they had
always resided together. The court denied the request and said, “If there’s a request for a
modification, it will have to come from [the wife].”
On July 29, 2022, defendant pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to
produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, subd. (a)(4), added count 3.) The court imposed a
four-year prison sentence, suspended it, and placed defendant on formal probation for
three years, under specified conditions. The court issued a protective order, which named
only the wife as the protected person.
On September 6, 2022, defendant and the wife requested the court to modify the
protective order from a no-contact order to a no-negative-contact order. The People
objected to the modification. The matter was continued to September 9, 2022, at which
time the court addressed the request. Defense counsel stated that defendant and the wife
3
wanted the family to reunify. The court denied the modification request, citing several
past incidents that took place in the presence of the children.
On October 10, 2023, defendant requested another modification to the protective
order, and the court ordered defendant to go to the probation department so it “may
provide a report to the court regarding the criminal protective order.” The probation
department filed a memorandum on October 31, 2023, stating it was not against
modifying the protective order, but requesting that defendant be prohibited from living
with the wife and children and be required to participate in parenting classes and an anger
management class.
The court held a hearing on November 7, 2023, and defense counsel stated that the
wife wanted to be heard regarding her request to have the criminal protective order
modified to a no-negative-contact order. The court stated the matter had already gone to
the probation department, and based on the recommendation, the court was not going to
allow contact with the wife. The court told the wife, “I have to protect the children
because you won’t.” However, the court did modify the protective order to include an
exception for contact with the children, but only for “the safe exchange of children and
court-ordered visitation” as stated in family or dependency court orders.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
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)
4
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and one potential arguable issue: whether the court abused its discretion in
denying the request for modification of the criminal protective order. 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
FIELDS J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's request to modify a criminal protective order, finding no arguable issues after an independent review of the record.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's request to modify the criminal protective order.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“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.”