Filed 7/31/14 P. v. Stapleton CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E060812
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1104336)
LARRY LEE STAPLETON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Rafael A. Arreola, Judge.
(Retired judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art.
VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Larry Stapleton appeals from the superior court’s order denying his
motion to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor, terminate his probation early,
and expunge his record. As discussed below, we affirm.
1
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
On August 9, 2011, the People filed a felony complaint charging defendant with
inflicting corporal punishment on a child resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code,
§ 273d, subd. (a)),2 false imprisonment (§ 236), and criminal threats (§ 422).
On September 20, 2011, defendant pled guilty to criminal threats in exchange for
the other two counts being dismissed.
On October 13, 2011, the trial court placed defendant on formal probation for 36
months, including a condition that he serve 70 days in county jail.
A minute order dated June 14, 2013, shows the trial court heard and denied a
motion by defendant, acting in pro per, to terminate his probation early pursuant to
section 1203.3.
On January 16, 2014, defendant, acting in pro per, filed a motion to reduce his
felony conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), terminate his
probation early pursuant to section 1203.3, and expunge his record pursuant to section
1203.4.
On February 4, 2014, the superior court heard and denied defendant’s motion,
commenting that “It appears that you’re still not accepting responsibility for your actions,
and you appear to think that for a 422 you need actual injury and serious injury. Maybe
you don’t understand. A 422 doesn’t require any injury at all. It’s a threat to somebody;
1 Defendant pled guilty early in the proceedings, so the record contains few
reliable facts about the charged offenses.
2
not an injury to somebody. So I don’t know if you completed—it appears you may have
completed domestic violence courses, but I’m not sure if you actually learned from it if
you’re making the comment that you’re making.”
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief
under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and
potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire
record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but,
surprisingly, given the length of his January 16, 2014 motion and extended notice of
appeal, he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
2 All section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
MILLER
J.
4