People v. Schmidt CA6

Filed 5/26/16 P. v. Schmidt CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H042432 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1482559)

v.

TERRY SCHMIDT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Terry Schmidt pleaded no contest to a count of failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290, subd. (b)).1 He was sentenced to 32 months in prison. On appeal, his counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that an independent review under Wende was being requested. We advised defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed, and defendant has not submitted a letter brief. Pursuant to Wende, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues. We will provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

BACKGROUND On May 2, 2014, officers responded to a report of a disturbance at the Best Value Inn in Milpitas, California.2 Upon arriving at the hotel, officers encountered defendant and conducted a records check. Defendant’s records reflected that he was required to register as a sex offender under section 290, subdivision (a). Defendant initially told officers that he had been living out of state, had returned to California only one year prior, and had previously registered in Hayward. Later, when interviewed by officers at jail, defendant admitted that he had lied to the arresting officers about registering in Hayward. By that time, he had been living in Milpitas for about a year. On May 5, 2014, the district attorney’s office filed a complaint charging defendant with a count of failing to register as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (b)). It was further alleged that defendant had two prior serious or violent felony convictions (prior strikes) for lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)).3 On January 22, 2015, defendant filed a waiver of his rights and indicated that he would be pleading no contest to a count of failing to register as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (b)). The waiver of rights form indicated that he acknowledged that he could face a maximum sentence of 25 years to life. During the change of plea hearing, the court gave an indicated sentence of 32 months. Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge of failing to register and admitted he had two strike priors.