People v. Wilde CA3

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Wilde CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C097494

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 20CF01073, 22CF01057) KYLE MATTHEW WILDE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kyle Matthew Wilde 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. Having reviewed the record and defendant’s supplemental arguments, we conclude defendant’s claims challenge the validity of his pleas or address matters occurring prior to the pleas, and hence are barred because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, and there is no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We will affirm the judgment. I This appeal involves two cases. In case No. 20CF01073 (the first case), defendant was charged with committing a lewd or lascivious act on H.H., his cousin’s 12-year-old

1

daughter. The charge was based on an incident in February 2020, in which defendant touched H.H.’s chest and abdomen and told her to spread her legs while he moved his hand towards her vagina. Defendant initially entered a plea of not guilty in June 2020, and subsequently moved to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta). Defendant’s Faretta motion was denied. In case No. 22CF01057 (the second case), defendant was charged with dissuading a witness by force or threat, stalking, solicitation of others to commit the crime of dissuading a witness, and disobeying a court order. It was further alleged with respect to the first three counts that defendant committed those offenses while released from custody on bail or on his own recognizance. The charges were based on social media posts made by defendant in February 2022, a month before H.H. and her mother were scheduled to testify in the first case. In one of the posts, defendant provided their names and address and told his followers that if they “wanted to talk to H.H. and her mother, then they could be contacted at their home.” Defendant initially entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. In June 2022, prior to the preliminary hearing in the second case, defendant moved to remove and replace his appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). After holding a Marsden hearing, the trial court denied the motion. In August 2022, the cases were consolidated for purposes of trial and defendant waived the right to a jury trial. The same month, defendant entered no contest pleas to the charge of lewd or lascivious conduct in the first case and the charge of stalking in the second case. In exchange for these pleas, defendant was promised dismissal of the remaining charges and special allegations, subject to a waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. With respect to sentencing, defendant expressly agreed that the trial court “may consider any fact discussed in the probation report as an aggravating or mitigating factor.” Defendant also checked a box on the plea form stating: “I understand