People v. Burghart CA6

Filed 3/6/25 P. v. Burghart CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H052334 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR002195)

v.

DARRYL EUGENE BURGHART,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted Darryl Eugene Burghardt1 of battery on a correctional officer and found true allegations that he had sustained five prior convictions for strike offenses.2 After denying his motion brought under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero), the trial court sentenced Burghardt to a term of 25 years to life. On appeal, Burghardt’s counsel has filed a brief which states the case but raises no issues, under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Burghardt filed a supplemental brief, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to consider his eligibility and suitability for mental health diversion under section 1001.36. Having independently reviewed the record and considered the issue raised in the supplemental brief, we conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal.

Although appellant was identified in the trial court as “Burghart,” we employ the 1

spelling he uses in his supplemental brief. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I. BACKGROUND The Monterey County District Attorney charged Burghardt by information with one count of battery on non-confined person by prisoner (§ 4501.5), arising out of an altercation between Burghardt and a correctional officer at the Salinas Valley State Prison. The information further alleged five prior convictions for strike offenses (§ 1170.12) and three circumstances in aggravation—that Burghardt (1) engaged in “violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society”; (2) has prior convictions that are “numerous and of increasing seriousness”; and (3) has served a prior prison term. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1)–(3).) Burghardt’s trial counsel twice declared a doubt regarding Burghardt’s competency, and both times, an examining psychologist deemed Burghardt competent to stand trial. Before trial, Burghardt also asked the court to dismiss the case under section 1385, subdivision (a), arguing that “nothing is to be gained by this prosecution” because Burghardt was already serving a term of 20 years to life in one case3 and sentenced to a consecutive term of 25 years to life in another. The court denied the motion. The jury convicted Burghardt of the battery and, in a bifurcated trial, found each of the five strike priors to be true. The jury also found true the aggravating circumstance that Burghardt had served a prior prison term. In his Romero motion, Burghardt relied in part on section 1385, subdivision (c) (section 1385(c)), which provides that a sentencing court “shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so,” and further requires the court to “afford great weight” to nine enumerated mitigating factors. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1), (2).) Acknowledging that a strike prior is not an “enhancement” within the meaning of