People v. Smith CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 2026 No. F089296Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after finding no arguable issues on appeal following a review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Issues

Whether the defendant's no contest plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to the low term of 16 months in accordance with the plea agreement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.”

“We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel fully complied with his responsibilities and there are no arguable issues on appeal.”

Filed 2/24/26 P. v. Smith 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089296 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF021210A) v.

MELTON LADON SMITH, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Keenan Perkins, Judge. Allan E. Junker, 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., Peña, J. and Harrell, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Melton Ladon Smith asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts relating to this appeal. Defendant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The District Attorney of Kern County filed an amended complaint on December 1, 2023, charging defendant with vandalism of property valued in excess of $400 (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (b)(1); count 1), misdemeanor damaging a prison or jail (§ 4600, subd. (a); count 2), and misdemeanor tampering with a fire alarm (§ 148.4, subd. (a)(1), count 3). The amended complaint also alleged that defendant had been convicted of prior strike convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and admitted there was sufficient evidence to hold him to answer. After an information was filed, defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations.2 Defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 on November 4, 2024, as part of an agreement with the prosecutor who would recommend the low term 16-month sentence with credit for time served and move to dismiss the strike allegations and remaining

People v. Smith CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief