People v. Scott CA1/1

Filed 12/30/22 P. v. Scott CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165121

v. (Del Norte County KYLE CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, Super. Ct. No. CRM- 21-9344) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Kyle Christopher Scott pleaded no contest to felony stalking. He later filed a motion to withdraw his plea, which the trial court denied. His appellate counsel has raised no arguable issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any issues that would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief but has not done so. We conclude no arguable issues are presented for review and affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In November 2021, the Del Norte County District Attorney filed a second amended complaint charging defendant with one count of felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), felony using personal identifying information (id., § 530.5, subd. (a)), felony false personation (id., § 529, subd.

1

(a)(3), two counts of misdemeanor contempt of court (id., § 166, subd. (c)(1)), misdemeanor violating a domestic relations order (id., § 273.6, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)). A month later, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of felony stalking in exchange for a 16-month lid and that the remaining counts would be dismissed. At the sentencing hearing, the court asked defendant if he was “in good health.” Defendant mentioned that he had “MRSA all over my arm” that it had “only gotten worse” while he was in custody. The court asked if the “problem with [his] arm preclude[ed him] from understanding the proceedings,” and defendant responded, “No, your Honor, not at all.” The court continued with the advisements, heard the factual basis for the plea, and found defendant’s plea to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Defendant was released from custody on a Cruz waiver1 pending sentencing. Before sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea. In his presentence interview, defendant stated he had signed the plea agreement to “facilitate his release from custody,” had “no intention of abiding by the plea agreement,” and was “planning to withdraw [the] plea and take [his] case to trial.” In his motion, he maintained he had good cause to withdraw his plea explaining he had “jumped at the opportunity to be released from custody so [he] could seek treatment for [his] MRSA infection.” The court denied the motion, finding no grounds to withdraw the plea. The court noted that when he advised defendant about the plea they talked out his general health, and he still “chose to enter a plea.” The court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison with 109 days’ credit, ordered