People v. Hatfield CA4/3

Filed 10/21/15 P. v. Hatfield CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G051076

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14HF2956)

TRAVIS ADAM HATFIELD, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert C. Gannon, Judge. Affirmed. Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

The complaint in this case charged defendant Travis Adam Hatfield with possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 1, all further references are to this code), and attempt to induce false testimony from one Riley H. (§§ 664, 137, subd. (c), count 2). In a negotiated disposition, Hatfield pleaded guilty to count 1, and admitted related probation violations in case numbers 13WM03280 and 13WF3409. In exchange, the prosecution dismissed count 2. As agreed in the guilty plea form, the court placed Hatfield on three years of supervised probation, on the condition he serve 30 days in jail, with 30 days credit for time served, and issued a protective order in favor of Riley H. Hatfield filed a timely notice of appeal from “the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.” Nothing in the record indicates Hatfield obtained a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) We appointed counsel to represent Hatfield on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court she found no arguable issues to assert on Hatfield’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel notified Hatfield that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, the time to do so has passed and we have received no communication from him. To assist us in our independent review of the record, counsel suggested we consider the following issues: 1. Did Hatfield validly waive his appellate rights? 2. Did Hatfield knowingly and voluntarily enter into his plea agreement, and was it otherwise constitutionally valid? 3. Did the trial court properly advise Hatfield of the sentence he would receive under the plea agreement? 4. Whether the protective order was issued under valid authority?