People v. Hesselberg CA5

Filed 8/27/25 P. v. Hesselberg CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F089225 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF018020C) v.

SILAS MATTHEW HESSELBERG, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge. Silas Matthew Hesselberg, in pro. per.; and Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Snauffer, J. and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Appellant Silas Matthew Hesselberg appeals from the sentence imposed after he pleaded no contest to the charge of aggravated assault upon an inmate. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting this court independently review the record. Appellant then submitted a separate supplemental letter brief raising two points he wishes to have reviewed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2023, appellant and two codefendants were charged with one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury by an inmate in state prison, with a special allegation of causing great bodily injury and allegations appellant had three prior serious violent felony convictions. The preliminary hearing evidence showed that appellant and his two codefendants attacked and injured a fellow inmate. The victim suffered a broken nose, along with cuts and swelling to the face, back of the head, and ears. Appellant eventually pleaded no contest to the assault charge and admitted having one prior strike conviction in exchange for a four-year sentence, comprising the low term doubled for the strike, and confirmation that the plea agreement did not result in an additional strike. Appellant completed and initialed a plea form, and the trial court conducted a thorough plea colloquy. Included in that colloquy was confirmation that appellant had spoken to his lawyer, understood the rights he was waiving, and had an opportunity to ask any further questions of his lawyer. It also included a second opportunity for appellant to discuss matters with counsel after he first denied the alleged prior strike conviction allegation. Appellant did not request further time to discuss the matter before then admitting he had a prior strike conviction. Appellant was later sentenced to the four-year term contemplated by his plea agreement, along with the statutory minimum for certain fines and fees, some of which were suspended. Appellant raised no issues with counsel.