People v. Hood CA3

Filed 12/22/23 P. v. Hood CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098999

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62173911)

v.

ALFRED FITZGERALD HOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Alfred Fitzgerald Hood 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.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND In 2022, a jury found defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and being a felon in possession of ammunition

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). As to each conviction, the jury found true defendant was armed with a firearm. In a bench trial, the court found true that: (1) defendant had two prior felony convictions under sections 1170.12 and 667; (2) defendant’s prior convictions were numerous or of increasing seriousness; and (3) defendant had served a prior prison or county jail term. The court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to strike the prior strikes. On January 6, 2023, the court sentenced defendant to three years for the firearm conviction and eight months for the ammunition conviction. The court suspended execution of that sentence and, after making an unusual case finding, granted defendant two years’ formal probation. A petition to revoke defendant’s probation was subsequently filed alleging indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. (1)), assault against a police officer (§ 241, subd. (c)), resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), possession of alcohol, and possession of a knife.2 At the probation violation hearing, a City of Roseville police officer testified that he responded to a call regarding a person disrobing in public and acting irrationally. That person was later identified as defendant. An electrical and building inspector testified that he witnessed defendant standing on a front lawn disrobing and grabbing and shaking his penis. A Placer County probation officer also testified that he searched a room in defendant’s mother’s home and found drug paraphernalia, a knife, and an empty bottle of chardonnay. Testifying in his defense, defendant denied ever exposing himself and denied living in his mother’s home. The trial court found defendant in violation of probation for indecent exposure, assault on a police officer, and willfully resisting a police officer. The court did not find