California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 2015 No. D066391Unpublished
Filed 2/19/15 P. v. Dennis CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066391
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD253372, SCD254868) MATTHEW MARK DENNIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R.
Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
Gideon Margolis for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Matthew Mark Dennis appeals from the judgments following his guilty pleas in
two separate criminal prosecutions. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting
no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in
accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Dennis has not
responded to our invitation to file a supplemental brief. After having independently
reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Dennis filed a single notice of appeal from the judgment in two separate criminal
In the first case (case No. SCD253372), Dennis was charged with petty theft with
a prior theft conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 666)1 and possession of paraphernalia used
for narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1, subd. (a)). The information further alleged
that Dennis had prison priors (§§ 667.5, 668) and two prior strikes (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i),
1170.12, 668). The two prior strikes, which Dennis incurred in 2004, were for arson
(§ 451, subd. (b)) and domestic violence (§§ 273.5, 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). According to
the probation officer's report, the petty theft occurred on January 12, 2014, when Dennis
shoplifted a bottle of rum, worth $23.99, from a supermarket. When Dennis was
arrested, police found a glass pipe in his pocket.
On January 27, 2014, Dennis pled guilty to the petty theft with a prior theft
conviction, and the People dismissed the remainder of the complaint. The trial court
granted formal probation to Dennis, with the condition that he serve 180 days in local
custody, along with the payment of fines and restitution.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory citations are to the Penal Code. 2
In the second case (case No. SCD254868), Dennis was charged with robbery
(§ 211). The information also alleged prison priors and the same two prior strikes that
were alleged in case No. SCD253372. According to the probation officer's report, the
robbery occurred on August 2, 2013, when Dennis entered a credit union, demanded that
the teller give him money, and left with $5,116. Dennis was not charged with the
robbery until March 2014, when he was identified as the perpetrator as the result of an
anonymous tip.
Dennis pled guilty to the robbery on June 2, 2014. The trial court indicated when
taking Dennis's guilty plea that, during sentencing, it intended to strike one of Dennis's
prior strikes. In connection with sentencing, Dennis filed a motion to strike one or both
of his prior strikes. At the July 15, 2014 sentencing hearing, the trial court struck one of
Dennis's prior strikes and sentenced Dennis to a 12-year prison term. Dennis
subsequently made an ex parte motion to recall and modify his sentence, which the trial
court denied.
During the sentencing on the robbery conviction (i.e., case No. SCD254868), the
parties agreed that the trial court should modify the sentence on the petty theft conviction
(i.e., case No. SCD253372) so that Dennis did not have to continue to remain on
probation in that case. Specifically, with the agreement of the parties, the trial court
ordered that the probation in case No. SCD253372 be modified to a 16-month prison
sentence, which Dennis would serve concurrently with the sentence for the robbery
conviction.
3
Dennis filed a combined notice of appeal from the judgment in cases
Nos. SCD253372 and SCD254868, and obtained certificates of probable cause from the
trial court for the appeal in both cases.
II
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings in the trial court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal but invited this
court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified as a possible but not
arguable issue whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to strike both of
Dennis's prior strikes.
After we received counsel's brief, we gave Dennis an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief, but Dennis did not respond.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel, has disclosed no
reasonably arguable appellate issue. Dennis has been adequately represented by counsel
on this appeal.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J. WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the judgments following the defendant's guilty pleas after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to strike both of the defendant's prior strikes?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.”
“A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issue suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”