Filed 8/8/16 P. v. Quarterman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E065015
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1402402)
ANTONIO QUARTERMAN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone,
Judge. Affirmed.
Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Antonio Quarterman entered a plea agreement and pled
no contest to one count of carrying a loaded firearm. (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a).)1 A
trial court sentenced him immediately. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court
sentenced defendant to three years in county prison and awarded him 1,108 days of
presentence custody credits (554 actual days and 554 conduct credits). The sentence was
deemed served, and the court ordered defendant released.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, in propria persona, stating that the
appeal was based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea, as well as the
denial of a motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2014, defendant was charged by information with two counts of
making criminal threats (§ 422, counts 1 & 2), two counts of threatening a public officer
(§ 71, counts 3 & 4), vandalism under $400 (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A), count 5), carrying a
loaded handgun (§ 25850, subd. (a), count 6), having a concealed firearm in a vehicle
(§ 25400, subd. (a)(1), count 7), being a felon carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850,
subds. (a) & (c)(1), count 8), being an occupant in a vehicle with a concealed firearm
(§ 25400, subd. (a)(3), count 9), and carrying a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a
felony (§ 25800, subd. (a), count 10). On December 17, 2014, defendant pled not guilty
on all counts.
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
On January 27, 2015, defendant indicated that he wanted a Marsden2 hearing. The
next day, the court held a hearing on defendant’s Marsden motion and denied it.
On March 6, 2015, defendant filed a Faretta3 waiver. The court advised him of
the perils of self-representation. After some inquiry, the court found that defendant
knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and granted him in propria
persona status.
On April 3, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for outrageous police
conduct. The court denied the motion.
On April 24, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to disclose
exculpatory evidence.
On May 8, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss multiple prosecutions.
On May 29, 2015, defendant filed a Pitchess4 motion. On that same day, the court
denied defendant’s motions to dismiss for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence and for
multiple prosecutions.
On June 5, 2015, defendant filed a motion for appointment of an investigator,
which the court granted. Defendant waived time for trial to August 28, 2015.
On June 29, 2015, defendant filed a nonstatutory motion to dismiss. He also filed
a motion for release on his own recognizance.
2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
3 Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.
4 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
3
On July 14, 2015, defendant filed a motion to discharge him. He also filed a
motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. That same day, the court held a hearing and
denied defendant’s motion for release on his own recognizance and his nonstatutory
motion to dismiss. Defendant waived time for trial to September 29, 2015.
On July 31, 2015, defendant filed two motions to set aside the information. That
same day, the court denied his motion to discharge him and his motion to dismiss for
vindictive prosecution.
On August 14, 2015, defendant filed another Pitchess motion. He also filed
another motion to set aside the information. The court held a hearing on the two previous
motions to set aside the information, and stated that it would consider all three motions to
set aside the information as one motion under section 995, and that it would make a
ruling as to each one under that one motion.
On September 16, 2015, defendant filed a demurrer for failure to state a public
offense, and a demurrer for lack of jurisdiction.
On September 29, 2015, the court held a hearing and denied the section 995
motion to set aside the information and the Pitchess motion.
On October 16, 2015, defendant filed a motion to disqualify the judge (Code Civ.
Proc. § 170.6.), which the court denied as untimely.
On October 23, 2015, the court held a hearing and noted that it had motions
pending that were entitled demurrers for failure to state a public offense and lack of
jurisdiction. The court stated that in criminal law, those motions would more
4
appropriately be called section 995 motions to dismiss. It then noted that, since the
substance of those motions had been addressed and ruled on previously, it was not going
to hear them.
On October 30, 2015, defendant filed a motion to discharge him from custody
because he had served excess time, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On November 13, 2015, the court held a hearing and explained to defendant that if
he ended up getting sentenced and had excess custody credits, such credits would be
deducted from his period of parole. The court stated that it was not there to sentence him
that day. Thus, the court stated, in regard to defendant’s motion to discharge him, that it
was not in a position to conclude that the legislative provisions for handling defendants
who served excess time were a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court continued
the matter to November 23, 2015, for a jury trial. The prosecutor then stated that it
wanted to put the People’s current plea agreement offer on the record. Defendant refused
the offer.
At the outset of a hearing on November 20, 2015, the prosecutor informed the
court that defendant wanted to go forward with the plea agreement. However, the
prosecutor first wanted to put on the record that defendant had two motions to file that
day. The prosecutor noted that one of them was a motion and one was actually what
defendant just called an argument. However, defendant said he did not want them to be
argued; he just wanted to enter the plea agreement. The court then noted the filing of a
motion to suppress evidence and defendant’s document entitled “Objection and
5
Argument to Motion Heard and Denied for Legally Discharge Dated 11-13-2015.”
Defendant explained that he just wanted the court to review the motions “if it becomes
necessary.” The court acknowledged him and proceeded to take his plea. Pursuant to the
plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to carrying a loaded handgun. (§ 25850,
subd. (a), count 6.) The court found a factual basis for the plea, and, on motion by the
People, dismissed the remaining counts. It then sentenced defendant to the upper term of
three years in county prison, awarded him a total of 1,108 of custody credits, and ordered
him released, since he had served his sentence.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. 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 and one potential arguable issue: whether the court should have heard
defendant’s motion to suppress before taking his plea. Counsel has also requested this
court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
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.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
7