Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS SNYDER, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Defendant Thomas Synder entered a negotiated plea of no contest to threatening a public officer or employee (Pen.Code, § 71). Defendant also admitted a prior serious or violent felony conviction and waived all presentence credit. In conformity with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to a second strike term of four years. Defendant's plea was based on a June 22, 2009 incident at Lancaster state prison in which he told a prison psychologist that his parole plans were to “get a gun, load it, and find out what [his parole agent's] home address is.”
Defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On October 4, 2011, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
Defendant's no contest plea and failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause limit the potential scope of defendant's appeal to “grounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea's validity” or “the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.” (Pen.Code, § 1237.5, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have examined the entire record and have found that no arguable issues of any sort exist, let alone issues cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. We are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J. CHANEY, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: B232783
Decided: January 13, 2012
Court: Court of Appeal, Second District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)