People v. Mitchum CA3

Filed 10/20/21 P. v. Mitchum CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092662

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CF01206 & 20CF00625) v.

MICHAEL ERNEST MITCHUM, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Ernest Mitchum, Jr., has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in defendant’s favor, we affirm. BACKGROUND Defendant’s appeal is a consolidation of two cases. In the first case (18CF01206), defendant was in a car that Butte County Sheriff’s deputies pulled over for a traffic stop

1

on January 30, 2018. Deputies found a loaded .22-caliber pistol under defendant’s seat and 3.5 grams of methamphetamine on defendant. Deputies then obtained a search warrant of defendant’s home and found a shotgun, shotgun shells, a .22-caliber pistol magazine, and .22-caliber ammunition. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 1),1 possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2), and it was alleged he had five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In the second case (20CF00625), defendant was in an altercation with staff at the Butte County Jail on February 2, 2020. When a correctional deputy asked defendant a question, defendant cursed back and said he was not going to talk to the deputy. Defendant then fought the deputies when they tried to remove him from the housing unit, hit a deputy in the face during the struggle, and eventually had to be tased. Defendant was charged with resisting an executive officer by force or violence (§ 69, subd. (a), count 1) and battery upon a custodial officer (§ 243.1, count 2). It was also alleged defendant had a prior strike. Defendant had a jury trial in this case and on August 20, 2020, the jury found defendant guilty of resisting an executive officer (count 1) and not guilty of battery upon a custodial officer (count 2). Defendant filed Pitchess2 motions for discovery of police officer conduct in both cases, and the trial court denied both motions for lack of good cause. On August 26, 2020, defendant pleaded no contest in the first case to possession of a firearm by a felon (count 2) and admitted a prior felony conviction in exchange for dismissal of all other remaining counts and allegations in that case. On the same day, pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant in both cases to three