People v. Glass CA3

Filed 2/17/23 P. v. Glass CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C096249

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21FE004994)

SHANNON RUDOLF GLASS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Shannon Rudolf Glass asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I On March 25, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to rape of an unconscious person (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(4)(b))1 and assault with intent to commit rape or

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

penetration by a foreign object (§ 220). Defendant admitted a prior strike allegation (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and the aggravating circumstances that the victims were particularly vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3))2 and that he took advantage of a position of trust (rule 4.421(a)(11)). Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of 32 years in prison (16 years for one rape [the upper term doubled for the prior strike], plus four years for a second rape [one- third the midterm doubled], plus 12 years for the assault [the upper term doubled]), and dismissed the remaining counts. The trial court awarded defendant 416 days of presentence credit (362 actual and 54 conduct) and struck all fines and fees,3 with victim restitution to be determined later. Defendant did not secure a certificate of probable cause. This court subsequently granted his motion to construe the notice of appeal as based on matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief, but many of his contentions concern pre-plea proceedings. For example, he addresses the trial court’s denial of bail, his Marsden4 motion to replace his court-appointed attorney, and the waiver of his right to a speedy