People v. Andreas CA3
Filed 3/17/15 P. v. Andreas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----
THE PEOPLE, C076463
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM040481)
v.
PHILIP MARK ANDREAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Sentenced to the upper term in state prison following a plea agreement, defendant Philip Mark Andreas contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion by applying improper aggravating factors and failing to consider mitigating factors, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the court’s reliance on improper aggravating factors. We affirm.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A felony complaint filed January 29, 2014, charged defendant with stalking (counts 1 & 2; Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)),1 making criminal threats (counts 3 & 4; § 422, subd. (a)), vandalism causing over $400 in damage (count 5; § 594, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor elder abuse (count 6; § 368, subd. (c)). Arthur Andreas was the alleged victim as to counts 1 and 6; Laurenil Andreas was the alleged victim as to counts 2 and 4; both were the alleged victims as to counts 3 and 5. Alisa Andreas was also an alleged victim as to count 4. Alleged victims Arthur and Laurenil Andreas wrote the following letter to the trial court: “Your Honor[,] we are writing to you concerning our son [defendant]. “Our son . . . has had a drug and alcohol abuse problem for a very long time, and in addition he is [b]ipolar and also has Lyme disease. For the most part he has not received any medical and professional help for his condition. “He has struggled academically and socia[l]ly. His decision making skills and judgment are very poor. For the last fifteen years he has bounced around from place to place, living with friends and relative[s] for very short periods, and in the streets and in storage sheds, where we have paid to have his personal belongings stored. “Whenever he has had money or anything of value, he quickly loses them, including his automobiles, to questionable people who he befriends. He has never been able to hold a job for more than a few months and has no employment record. He has incurred a huge amount of debt, which he will never be able to pay off, including to the court systems in different counties in California. He has a very distorted sense of reality
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)