People v. Clark CA3
Filed 2/25/16 P. v. Clark CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Amador) ----
THE PEOPLE, C078012
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13-CR-21299)
v.
QUINTERRIOUS RUSSELL CLARK,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Quinterrious Russell Clark has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having reviewed the record, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
1
In May 2013, defendant was an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison. Correctional Officers Andrew Purcell and Frank Custino worked the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift in building 9 of the prison. Shortly after beginning his shift on May 23, 2013, Officer Purcell noticed two inmate clerks in the “sally port” which controls entry into building 9. Defendant, who was not housed in building 9, was also in the “sally port.” When Officer Purcell approached, defendant said in a very agitated and angry tone that he needed to speak to his counselor. Officer Purcell explained that defendant did not belong in building 9 and would need to obtain either a pass or permission from the control booth officer in order to see his counselor. Defendant left. At 2:15 p.m., defendant returned and attempted to enter building 9. Defendant said, again in a very angry and agitated manner, “I’m going to see my fucking counselor . . . . I’m going to see him right now.” Officer Purcell said, “Hey, you don’t – I just told you the proper procedure how to see your counselor, and you’re sneaking back in.” Concerned for the safety of the counselor and the other inmates, Officer Purcell instructed defendant to “get on the wall” (put his hands on the wall) so Officer Purcell could do a patdown search. Defendant initially complied by facing the wall. However, as Officer Purcell began to patdown his upper torso, defendant turned around, spun Officer Purcell around, and pushed Officer Purcell into the “sally port.” Officer Purcell used his body weight to force defendant to the floor and sounded the alarm as he tried to handcuff defendant, telling him, “I got to put handcuffs on you. Comply, comply. Do what I tell you. I’m going to put handcuffs on you.” Defendant resisted by squirming back and forth and keeping his arms apart. Officer Custino attempted to assist in handcuffing defendant, to no avail. Counselor Steve Winkler arrived and also attempted to assist, without success. Meanwhile, the control booth officer instructed all other inmates to get down.
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)