People v. Langston CA5

California Court of Appeal May 6, 2016 No. F069686Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's judgment of conviction and sentence after finding no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues following an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's Marsden motions.
Whether the trial court erred in its competency determination under section 1368.
Whether the defendant's plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.”

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Filed 5/6/16 P. v. Langston CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F069686 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. VCF270279 & v. VCF282673)

JOSEPH LANE LANGSTON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Valeriano Saucedo, Judge.

Tutti Hacking, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION After entering no contest pleas to multiple felony and misdemeanor allegations in two separate cases, defendant Joseph Lane Langston was sentenced to prison for a term of five years four months. Defendant’s appellate counsel has filed a brief stating there are no issues and seeks independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Earlier Criminal Case On July 20, 2012, defendant pled no contest in case No. VCF270279 to a misdemeanor count of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 1) and a felony count of interfering with an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69, count 2). Under the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to one year in county jail, he was placed on felony probation, and allegations made pursuant to the three strikes law were dismissed. The court gave, and defendant waived, his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.1 Defendant did not appeal this action. Current Allegations After a preliminary hearing on October 7, 2013, the People filed an information in case No. VCF282673 alleging the following four felony counts: evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 1), sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a), count 2), possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11359, count 3), and sale or transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a), count 4). The information alleged two misdemeanor violations for resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a), count 5), and furnishing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (b), count 6). There were allegations that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12,

People v. Langston CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief