People v. Lane CA6

Filed 3/25/22 P. v. Lane CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H048641 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1913191)

v.

DWANE LEE LANE,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Dwane Lee Lane pleaded no contest to felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)).1 At sentencing, upon defendant’s payment of victim restitution, the trial court reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor and placed defendant on probation with various terms and conditions. Defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no response from defendant.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly) at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case. II. BACKGROUND A. The Offense According to written police reports, defendant used a hammer to break a window in two of the victim’s vehicles. It was determined that it would cost more than $400 to replace the broken windows. B. The Charge and Plea In July 2019, defendant was charged by complaint with felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)). In August 2019, defendant pleaded no contest in the instant case and admitted violating probation in a separate case. He entered his no contest plea with the understanding that the offense in the instant case would be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17 if he paid victim restitution by the time of sentencing, and that he would be placed on probation with various terms and conditions, including 60 days in county jail. Defendant was released on his own recognizance after he agreed to appear at the sentencing hearing, which was scheduled for November 21, 2019. Defendant’s plea agreement included a Cruz waiver,2 in which he expressed his understanding that if he “willfully fail[ed] to appear for future court dates,” he would “lose the benefit of any plea agreement. The sentencing judge could then impose a different or greater punishment up