People v. Cropper CA5

Filed 10/17/22 P. v. Cropper CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F083903 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21909249) v.

RICKY DEE CROPPER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Monica R. Diaz, Judge. Lillian Hamrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY This is an appeal following a plea of no contest, raising sentencing issues, and is authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b). It is authorized by Penal Code section 1237. STATEMENT OF THE CASE In a complaint filed December 7, 2021,1 Cropper was charged with criminal threats (Pen. Code,2 § 422; count 1), and misdemeanor contempt of court in a pending case (§ 166, subd. (c)(1); counts 2, 3 & 4). On December 8, Cropper’s arraignment was continued because he was in the hospital. He was arraigned the next day, December 9, at which time he pleaded not guilty. A protective order was filed that day.3 (§ 136.2). On December 15, Cropper signed a Felony Advisement, Waiver of Rights, and Plea Form, pleading no contest to count 1 and the dismissal of the remaining counts in exchange for a 16-month maximum sentence. The court indicated a “no initial state prison with release at sentencing, based upon the facts as presented through the People” on that date. Cropper acknowledged that he had read and initialed the boxes on the change of plea form and understood the rights he was waiving. There was a stipulated factual basis for the plea. At the sentencing hearing on January 31, 2022, the trial court heard statements from the victim’s mother, a friend of the victim, and the victim. After hearing these statements, the court withdrew its indicated sentence and offered Cropper the opportunity

1 References to dates are to dates in 2021 unless otherwise stated. 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 3The protective order indicates it was served on Cropper on December 8, presumably at the arraignment scheduled for that date and subsequently continued to December 9. Because Cropper was in the hospital on December 8, that service date appears to be an error. The protective order most likely was served on December 9.