People v. Dickinson CA3

Filed 3/24/22 P. v. Dickinson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ---- THE PEOPLE, C094493

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CRF- DV-2021-0001458) v.

ARMAND IGNATIUS DICKINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Armand Ignatius Dickinson 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.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In February 2021, defendant was charged with corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant, or parent of a child (Pen. Code, § 273.5; subd. (a); count one; all statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise noted), assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count two), robbery (§ 211; count three), criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count four), and cruelty to a child

1

by inflicting injury (§ 273a, subd. (b); count five). As to counts one, two, and three, it was further alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury during the offenses, causing the offenses to be serious felonies (§§ 12022.7, subd. (e), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The court issued a criminal protective order requiring defendant not to contact and to stay away from the victim, S.B. (§ 136.2). On March 30, 2021, defendant agreed to plead guilty to count one and to admit the great bodily injury enhancement that had been pleaded in exchange for a stipulated midterm sentence of three years. This was to be served as a violent strike. Credits would accrue at 85 percent with the sentence on the enhancement stayed for sentencing purposes. Given the agreement, the remaining charges and enhancements were to be dismissed. The parties stipulated to the following factual basis for the plea: On February 7, 2021, defendant’s former girlfriend, S.B., was carrying her infant child back to her apartment when defendant approached and hit her multiple times in the face, causing severe bleeding to her nose and mouth, and also severe swelling to her eyes and forehead area. S.B. felt dizzy and had difficulty maintaining her balance. It was later determined at a hospital that she had suffered a fracture to her nose area as a result of defendant hitting her. During the change of plea hearing, defense counsel informed the court that she had had adequate time to discuss with defendant his constitutional rights, each of the charges, possible defenses, as well as consequences from entering a plea. She also had explained to defendant that the offense qualified as a violent strike offense, and she believed defendant understood all of the explanations. Later in the hearing, when the trial court asked defendant if he had had adequate time to discuss the matter with his attorney, defendant responded, “not really.” The court then asked whether counsel wanted to take a recess to have another chance to speak with defendant about the plea, which the prosecutor indicated was only open for that day.