People v. Harper CA3

Filed 11/20/14 P. v. Harper CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072762

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09F06365)

PAUL GAPPO HARPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Paul Gappo Harper asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

I The People filed a complaint charging defendant and his wife, Theresa Harper, with the August 20, 2009 murder of their 21-month-old child (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and with assault likely to produce great bodily injury resulting in a child’s death (§ 273ab). The magistrate held defendant and his wife to answer on both charges. Defendant’s trial counsel subsequently advised the trial court that he was concerned about defendant’s competence to stand trial. The trial court suspended the criminal proceedings and appointed two doctors, Charles B. Schaffer, M.D. (a psychiatrist) and Paul G. Mattiuzzi, Ph.D. (a psychologist), to examine defendant pursuant to section 1368. After considering reports from the doctors, the trial court concluded defendant was competent to stand trial and reinstated the criminal proceedings. Trial commenced and two separate juries were selected and sworn. Before the presentation of evidence, however, the prosecutor announced that defendant’s wife had entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for her guilty plea to second degree murder, she would receive a prison sentence of 15 years to life and would potentially testify against defendant at trial. The trial court accepted her change of plea. Defendant was offered an aggregate state prison term of 25 years to life in exchange for pleas to second degree murder and assault likely to produce great bodily injury resulting in a child’s death. Defendant accepted the plea agreement. He assured the trial court that he had been taking his medications regularly, that he understood the proceedings, and that his conduct had resulted in the death of his child. He said he understood that the jury would find him guilty based on the evidence. He further stated that he understood his prison term would be 25 years to life and that, with good behavior, he could be eligible for parole. The trial court directed defendant to let the trial court