People v. Guiles CA3

Filed 1/27/21 P. v. Guiles CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090922

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16F6155)

v.

BRIAN LUTHER GUILES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Brian Luther Guiles filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 2017, defendant was charged in Shasta County case No. 16F6155 with felony vandalism with property damage of approximately $25,000 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1), count one; statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated). He pleaded not guilty, and later waived a preliminary hearing. Defendant was held to answer on the charge, and entered a general time waiver. On June 13, 2017, defendant made a Marsden motion. The court denied the motion following an in camera hearing. In June 2019, the People moved to consolidate case No. 16F6155 with two additional cases defendant had pending in Shasta County: case No. 16M7105, in which he was charged with disobeying a court order in contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)) and possession of an injecting/smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 12022.1); and case No. 16M5000, in which he was charged with unauthorized entry of a dwelling house (§ 602.5) and disobeying a court order in contempt of court (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). In August 2019, the court granted the motion to consolidate case No. 16M5000, but left for the trial judge to rule on consolidating case No. 16M7105. The following month, defense counsel moved in limine to “reverse” or reconsider the motion to consolidate. Counsel also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 995. The court denied both motions. The trial judge subsequently denied consolidation as to case No. 16M7105. A September 2019 consolidated information charged defendant with felony vandalism in the amount of $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (b)(1), count one), unauthorized entry of a dwelling house (§ 602.5, count two), and contempt of court for disobeying a court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4), count three). The consolidated case was tried to a jury, and the following evidence was adduced at trial.