People v. Putzier CA3

Filed 2/18/21 P. v. Putzier CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C088732

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 17CF00122, 18CF04624) DALE EDMAN PUTZIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dale Edman Putzier asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I In case No. 17CF00122 (the 2017 case), the People charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1) -- count one)1 and hit and run resulting in injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(1) -- count two).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Counsel declared a doubt concerning defendant’s competency and defendant was declared incompetent to stand trial. On March 29, 2018, the trial court determined that defendant’s competency had been restored and reinstituted proceedings. The information was amended to add a count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4) -- count three), and defendant pleaded no contest to that count in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and the ability to move at sentencing to reduce count three to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b)(3). The stipulated factual basis for this plea was taken from the probation report, which indicated defendant intentionally struck the victim’s vehicle three times with his own truck in a casino parking lot before fleeing. The victim had a back injury and was transported for medical treatment. The trial court sentenced defendant in the 2017 case to three years formal probation with various terms and conditions, including the imposition of 193 days with credit for 193 days served. Weeks later, the People filed a petition alleging that defendant violated his conditions of probation and the People also filed a complaint (later deemed an information) in case No. 18CF04624 (the 2018 case) alleging assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a knife (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) -- count one), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a) -- count two), false imprisonment by violence (§ 236 -- count three), resisting, obstructing, or delaying a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1) -- count four), and possession of a controlled substance, to wit, methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a) -- count five). Defendant entered dual pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, resulting in the appointment of two evaluators to assess defendant’s sanity at the time of the offense. The evaluators disagreed concerning defendant’s sanity, and defendant indicated he would hire a third evaluator. He later withdrew the not guilty by reason of insanity plea.