P. v. Adams CA3

Filed 5/20/13 P. v. Adams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C072638

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SC055166B)

v.

QUAWNTAY ADAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Quawntay Adams has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no errors and shall affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On October 21, 1992, while confined at the California Youth Authority (CYA; now the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities), defendant assaulted a youth counselor, hitting her multiple times with a sock containing a can of beans while another ward held her down. Defendant was 17 years old when he committed the crime. He was arraigned as an adult on charges of assault with a deadly

1

weapon on a peace officer (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (c)) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)). On February 18, 1993, while represented by counsel, defendant pleaded guilty to the assault charge in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count, and was sentenced to three years in state prison. The arrest disposition forms and the abstract of judgment reflect defendant's birth date as September 30, 1972, as opposed to September 30, 1975. According to those documents, defendant was 20 years old when he committed the crime. On March 14, 1995, defendant filed his first of three petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, alleging he was released from state prison on July 29, 1994, and thereafter “arrested by [CYA] for no reason” despite the court having informed him he was “not to return to [CYA]” and was to be released on parole. Defendant filed his second of three petitions for writ of habeas corpus on April 5, 1995, in which he reiterated the allegations contained in the first petition and further alleged that he was 17 years old when he committed the crime. Defendant alleged that CYA felt he “was unfit for their treatment” and “sent [him] to [adult] court for prosecution.” He also claimed he served a three-year sentence in state prison even though he had been sentenced to “only . . . [two] years.” On May 2, 1995, the superior court denied both of defendant‟s petitions, ruling that “CYA‟s continued supervision over [defendant] is an administrative decision by CYA that is subject to administrative review” and defendant “must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the court.” With respect to defendant's age, the court stated, “Court records reflect that [defendant‟s] date of birth is September 30, 1972, that the assault occurred on October 21, 1992, and that [defendant]