Filed 6/9/16 P. v. Kane CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D068888
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN342043)
JEFFREY ELIAS KANE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J.
Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.
Boyce & Schaefer and Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Counsel for defendant Jeffrey Elias Kane has filed a brief asking this court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2015 Kane was charged in a criminal complaint with one count of
robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211). The complaint also alleged Kane had served five prior
prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had suffered a prior strike conviction within the
meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12 & 668). Kane initialed
a provision on the form under which he waived (among other things) his right to raise on
appeal "any sentence stipulated herein." Kane also initialed a statement that he "did
unlawfully by force take property from [the victim]."
The trial court accepted Kane's guilty plea after finding that Kane understood his
constitutional rights and voluntarily waived them, that his plea was freely and voluntarily
made, that he understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea, and
that there was a factual basis for the guilty plea. The court granted the People's motion to
dismiss the balance of the complaint, including the strike prior allegation.
On July 14, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced
Kane to the lower term of two years in state prison for his robbery conviction with credit
for time he had served in local custody.
Kane filed in propria persona a notice of appeal on September 16, 2015, stating
that he "[g]reatly [felt]" he was not guilty of robbery because he "was only shoplifting,"
and that he "took the deal out of she[e]r desperation."
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
DISCUSSION
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) summarizing the proceedings below and
indicating he was unable to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal or
modification of the judgment on appeal. Kane's counsel has identified two possible, but
not arguable, issues under Anders: (1) "Is [Kane's] guilty plea constitutionally valid?,"
and (2) "Was the waiver of the right to appeal valid?"
We granted Kane permission to file a brief on his own behalf. On April 8, 2016,
Kane filed in propria persona a handwritten brief in which he states that he "greatly
do[es] not agree [his] plea of guilt is constitutionally valid" and that he believes he is not
guilty of robbery. He asserts that "[t]he Police report is nothing more than a callous lye
[sic]" and that he was injured when he was "tackled by loss prevention." He also asserts
that a witness told the police officer that he (Kane) did not push or swing at the loss
prevention employee "[b]ut there was no mention of this person in the police report." He
claims he "took the [plea] deal out of fear" because he "could not mentally understand the
strain of prejudice brought by the Police behaviors." He further asserts that he is
"mentally dissabled [sic] with brain damage and mental retardation."
We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and considered the
possible issues identified by Kane's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable
issues for reversal or modification of the judgment. The reporter's transcript of the
change of plea hearing shows that Kane understood the nature of the proceeding,
responded appropriately to the court's questions, understood his constitutional rights and
3
voluntarily waived them, understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of
his plea, and freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the robbery charge in exchange for
the striking of the prior strike allegation and imposition of the stipulated two-year prison
sentence. We conclude Kane's guilty plea is constitutionally valid. We also conclude his
waiver of the right to appeal is valid.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment. Kane's appellate counsel
has competently represented him in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
4