P. v. Malear CA1/1 filed
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 2/28/11 P. v. Malear CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A129913 v. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR923098) STEVEN LEE MALEAR, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Steven Lee Malear appeals from a judgment and sentence of four years in state prison after he pleaded no contest to a violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a), corporal injury to a cohabitant. Defendant s counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief and has not done so. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find there are no meritorious issues to argue or brief. The judgment is affirmed. Background On August 6, 2010, after plea negotiations, defendant with the assistance of counsel initialed each of the applicable boxes in a plea form with waiver of rights that explained the terms of his plea, the consequences, and waiver of constitutional rights, with an indicated possible maximum term of four years in state prison. Two other pending counts were dismissed, and another pending case was also dismissed in return for defendant s no contest plea to the Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) charge. 1 The court orally questioned defendant about his plea and waiver of rights, made findings, and accepted and approved defendant s plea, admissions, and waiver of rights. On August 27, 2010, the court held a lengthy sentencing hearing. After an initial discussion about withdrawal of his plea, defendant and his counsel agreed to go forward with the sentencing hearing. Defense counsel urged the court to grant probation with county jail time so that his client could enter a long-term residential substance abuse program. The court reviewed the probation department s recommendation for probation, listened to defendant s ex-girlfriend s narration of violent threats against her and her child, her family, and threatening calls to her work place, considered defense counsel s arguments regarding factors in mitigation, listened to defendant s personal explanation and remorsefulness, and carefully considered defendant s extensive criminal record. The court articulated and weighed circumstances in mitigation against circumstances in aggravation and imposed the upper term of four years to which defendant and his counsel strenuously objected. Appropriate fines were imposed and custody credits awarded. Disposition There was no error in the proceedings. The record does not indicate any abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________ Marchiano, P.J. We concur: ______________________ Margulies, J. ______________________ Banke, J. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
