People v. Schlaick CA6

Filed 4/16/25 P. v. Schlaick CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H052167 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR006864)

v.

MICHAEL WILLIAM SCHLAICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Michael William Schlaick appeals from a judgment entered after conviction by plea. Appointed counsel for Schlaick has filed a brief asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Schlaick was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief but has not responded. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Schlaick, we affirm the judgment.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, title 8, standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.)

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2022, a man later identified as Schlaick drove a Cadillac alongside the vehicle of Jane Doe, who was stopped at a red light. Schlaick exited the Cadillac, and, claiming he was a “ ‘cop,’ ” ordered her out of “ ‘her fucking car right now.’ ” When she refused, he reached into the vehicle and tried to grab Doe and told her he would “break” her, but she drove off. In August 2023, a City of Seaside police officer observed a Cadillac with tinted windows, a violation of Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a)(1), and conducted a traffic stop. The officer recognized the driver as the suspect in the May 2022 incident, which Doe had captured on video. The officer ordered Schlaick out of the vehicle, observed Schlaick was “uneasy on his feet,” and conducted a field sobriety test. Schlaick performed poorly on the test. A preliminary alcohol screening test revealed a blood alcohol level of 0.161 percent. A subsequent breathalyzer test recorded a blood alcohol content of 0.15 percent. On August 18, 2023, the Monterey County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Schlaick with criminal threats (Pen. Code,2 § 422, subd. (a); count 1), false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count 2), misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count 3), and misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more (id., subd. (b); count 4). As to counts one and two, the complaint alleged that Schlaick suffered a prior strike conviction and prior serious felony conviction (§§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), 667, subd. (a)(1), respectively) in connection with a 1991 first degree burglary conviction. On February 22, 2024, pursuant to a plea agreement, Schlaick pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 4 and admitted, as to count 1, two aggravating factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) and (b)(3) as well as a prior serious felony conviction