People v. Samm CA3

Filed 12/8/22 P. v. Samm CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096268

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-2018- 3971) v.

STERLING SAMM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Sterling Samm 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.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND A jury convicted defendant of three counts of kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)),1 vandalism causing more than $400 in damage (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), two counts of infliction of corporal injury on a person with whom defendant had a dating relationship (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), making a criminal threat (§ 422), and false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)) in Yolo County Superior Court case No. CR-2018-3971. He was sentenced to 48 years eight months in state prison. Defendant appealed, and this court remanded to allow the trial court to clarify its sentencing choices, consider whether the sentences for infliction of corporal injury and false imprisonment must be stayed under section 654, and resentence defendant as appropriate. We otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Samm (July 2, 2021, C090684) [nonpub. opn.].) Upon remand, defendant filed a “motion to reverse void judgment,” arguing that the judgment was void because it was “entered for lack of jurisdiction in the first instance as evidenced by the Respondent’s confession of judgment lodged in the record.” According to defendant’s convoluted motion and supporting papers, defendant apparently filed a motion for discovery under the Administrative Procedures Act and thereafter obtained some sort of civil judgment by default against the People in Alameda County Superior Court. Based primarily on the alleged default, defendant asserted that the People and the trial court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction over him in the criminal proceedings because he was unlawfully charged by a defective charging instrument; that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to provide a “validity test” to the charging document; and that the prosecutor violated discovery obligations