People V Carper Ca41

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Jason Carper pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245(a)(4)) and admitted the victim was a person described in Family Code § 6211(a). He received a three-year probation term with 180 days of custody, one day of credit, and various fines and fees. A criminal protective order was issued. The appeal, reviewed under People v. Wende and Anders, found no arguable issues for reversal, and the judgment was affirmed.

Issues

  • Was Carper sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement?
  • Whether the trial court erred in imposing a three-year term of probation.

Holdings

  • The court found no error in Carper's sentence as it was in accordance with the plea agreement, including 180 days of custody and probation terms.
  • The trial court's imposition of a three-year probation term was upheld, with no arguable issues identified for reversal.

Remedies

  • Jason Carper was granted probation for three years.
  • 180 days of custody with one day of credit
  • A criminal protective order was issued
  • Various fines and fees assessed as part of the sentence

Legal Principles

The court applied the procedural standards from People v. Wende and Anders v. California to review the case for potential errors after the defendant's guilty plea and appointed counsel's failure to identify arguable issues. The judgment was affirmed under these principles.

Precedent Name

  • Anders v. California
  • People v. Wende

Cited Statute

  • Family Code
  • Penal Code

Judge Name

  • Castillo
  • Do
  • Huffman

Passage Text

  • APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J. Popkins, Judge. Affirmed.
  • Jason Carper entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and admitted the victim was a person described in Family Code section 6211, subdivision (a). He was granted probation for three years.
  • We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.