Filed 6/16/16 P. v. Carter 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D068655
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE346862)
BRAD CARTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura
Halgren, Judge. Affirmed.
Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
In February 2015, Brad Carter pleaded guilty to one count of corporal injury upon
a spouse or cohabitant. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count 2.)1 Carter admitted he
"willfully [and] unlawfully inflicted corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition"
upon his girlfriend. Other counts, including an attempted murder count, were dismissed
as part of the agreement. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court suspended imposition
of a sentence and placed Carter on probation for three years with a condition he serve 365
days in custody. As a condition of probation, the court issued a protective order requiring
him to stay away from the victim, his girlfriend.
In July 2015, Carter admitted he violated his probation and waived his right to an
evidentiary hearing. Within days of being released from custody, Carter returned to the
home he shared with the victim and had contact with her. The court revoked probation
and sentenced him to the middle term of three years in state prison.
Carter appeals. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting we
independently review the record for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441-442.) Having done so and having identified no reasonably arguable appellate issues,
we affirm the judgment.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
BACKGROUND2
A
In January 2015, El Cajon Police Department officers "responded to a residence
regarding a report of a chronic 'male/female' disturbance. The 911 caller reported she
heard the female . . . screaming for help. Upon arrival, the officers heard the victim
screaming. They followed the screams and arrived at a condominium unit. An officer
looked over the fence and saw the defendant kneeling over the victim and strangling her.
The officer heard the victim yell[,] 'No, please just stop!' The officers entered the
unlocked residence and observed the defendant kneeling on top of the victim, who was
on the floor on her back. The defendant was strangling the victim . . . . The defendant
was removed from the victim. She was crying, gasping for air and her hands were
shaking. Her shirt was ripped, exposing her breasts, and there was smeared blood on
various places on her body. A missing piece of the victim's shirt was found nearby."
After Carter was removed from the residence, a police officer found a rifle with
blood on it and the safety in the fire position, a magazine for the rifle (loaded with one
bullet), a handgun, and an open folding knife stuck into the floor in a bedroom.
The victim reported she had been drinking during the evening and had gone to
bed. She said she was awakened by Carter pulling her out of bed by her feet. "He drug
her down the stairs by her feet and punched her in the face . . . . She said he was going to
kill her as he was beating her . . . ."
2 We take the factual background from the probation officers' reports. There was no
preliminary examination since Carter pleaded guilty on the amended felony complaint.
3
A neighbor reported she heard shouting, which escalated to violent screams of
"Help me" and "He's going to kill me." The neighbor called 911 when she became afraid
the victim could not fend for herself and sounded as though she was being choked. The
neighbor had heard similar incidents in the past "but 'this one sounded more violent than
in the other times.' "
B
In June 2015, Carter was rearrested after he admitted to a probation officer he had
been residing in the home with the victim since he was released from custody. He
acknowledged he was aware it was a violation of the protective order, but stated, "Where
am I supposed to live. It's my house." He also claimed he was the main caretaker for the
victim and needed to be there to assist with her daily needs.
At the probation revocation hearing, his attorney represented Carter was only out
of custody for six days when he told the probation officer he had gone to the house to get
his glasses. His counsel noted he had taken an anger management class while in custody
and asked he be given another opportunity for probation. His counsel also noted the
victim did not want the protective order.
The court noted the difference between Carter's counsel's accounting of the
probation violation and that of the probation officer's report. The court also indicated
Carter was fully advised when he was granted probation and the protective order was
issued that he was not to be in the home with the victim. "I think it's very clear to him
that he wasn't to be at the house with the victim." The court also expressed concerns
about the seriousness of the underlying facts of the case noting, "if the police hadn't
4
intervened, she could have died." For that reason, the court determined a prison sentence
was appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Carter's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested
we review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
pages 441-442. To aid our review, and consistent with Anders v. California (1976) 386
U.S. 738, 744, counsel identified two possible appellate issues:
1. Whether the court abused its discretion in revoking Carter's probation.
(People v. Rodriguez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 437, 443 [holding § 1203.2, subd. (a) gives trial
court "very broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated probation"
and confers "great flexibility upon judges making the probation revocation
determination"].)
2. Whether the court abused its discretion in sentencing Carter. (People v.
Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977-978 [" 'The burden is on the party
attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or
arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to
have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary
determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.' "].)
We granted Carter permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He
did not do so.
5
As requested by counsel, we reviewed the record for error and did not find any
reasonably arguable appellate issues. Carter has been competently represented by
counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
6