People v. Reynolds CA2/2

Filed 4/1/16 P. v. Reynolds CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B265385/B267387

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA064061) v.

FRANK REYNOLDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:*

Frank Reynolds (defendant) appeals following his plea of “no contest” in case No. MA064061 to one count of vandalism over $400 in damage (Pen. Code, § 594, 1 subd. (a)) , and one count of stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (b)). According to the probation officer’s report, deputies responded following a complaint by Marlene Lopez that a man was throwing bricks at her residence. As the deputies approached the residence, they saw defendant, who matched the description provided by Ms. Lopez, and detained him. She informed the officers that two days prior she saw defendant break her second floor apartment window by throwing bricks at it. A

* BOREN, P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

deputy discovered the windshield of a vehicle parked on the street was shattered. There was an impression in the windshield which appeared to have been made by a brick thrown through it. During the investigation it was discovered that another victim had recently suffered a broken windshield also caused by a thrown brick. A witness informed deputies he heard a noise that sounded like a window breaking and saw defendant come from that direction. Defendant, who was intoxicated, said he had been served with a protective order to stay away from Ms. Lopez and had not seen her in months. Defendant was charged with three counts of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (b)), and disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). Defendant pled “no contest” to one count of vandalism and stalking; admitted a 1994 burglary conviction constituted a prior strike; agreed to a 10-year stay-away protective order; and agreed to pay victim restitution to the two victims in an amount totaling $2,319.36. Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and the nature and consequences of the plea, which he stated he understood. The trial court expressly found defendant’s waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing and intelligent. Pursuant to the terms of the plea bargain the court sentenced defendant to 32 months in state prison, and ordered him to pay the agreed upon restitution amount of $2,319.36. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. Defendant neither sought nor was granted a certificate of probable cause. Nevertheless, on June 5, 2015, approximately 10 months after sentencing, defendant filed a pro. per. motion to vacate his sentence claiming Ms. Lopez was not the registered owner of the vehicle he damaged. Ten days later he filed a motion to dismiss the restitution finding. The trial court denied the motions ruling that defendant had “expressly waived his right to a restitution hearing, and stipulated to the amount owed . . . .” On June 30, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging that ruling in case No. B265385. On July 22, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the strike prior. The trial court denied the motion, and on August 10, 2015, defendant appealed that ruling in case No. B267387. This court ordered both appeals consolidated for all purposes.