Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Jonathan Allen Ludwick

July 19, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
JONATHAN ALLEN LUDWICK, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. CRF103028)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.

P. v. Ludwick CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jonathan Allen Ludwick asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)

Defendant filed a supplemental brief asserting (1) ineffective assistance by defense counsel, (2) misconduct by the prosecutor, (3) misconduct by the probation department, and (4) a challenge to the victim restitution order. Defendant's claims are forfeited because they are not supported by analysis, citations to the record or citations to legal authority. In any event, the claims ultimately fail.

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Defendant repeatedly harassed his ex-wife Tammy Jo Whiteside while on felony probation in another matter. He created a social networking account using a false name and posted insulting and threatening messages to Whiteside. One message read: "I wonder if a person comes up missing if another person still can be arrested or tried for crimes. I wonder what your kids would feel if there [sic] mother came up missing." Another internet posting listed Whiteside's personal information, including her social security number.

In December 2010, defendant posted messages on Whiteside's Twitter account. Some messages declared his love for her while others insulted her. In addition, defendant fired a BB gun at Whiteside's house, left numerous "greeting cards" at her home (including an Easter card asking for forgiveness), and opened two "imposter" email accounts using Whiteside's name.

Defendant gave Whiteside's home address to Adrianna Rafanan and asked Rafanan to "beat" Whiteside. When Rafanan refused, defendant began sending threatening text messages to Rafanan. Rafanan contacted the police after receiving a message depicting a decapitated body. Whiteside had also contacted the police on several occasions, filing reports of stalking, harassment and vandalism.

Defendant was arrested and charged with stalking with a restraining order in place (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), false personation (former Pen. Code, § 529, subd. 3), attempting to dissuade a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)), making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), and graffiti (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)). He pleaded no contest to stalking with a restraining order in place and making criminal threats. In exchange for his plea, the remaining charges and trailing misdemeanors were dismissed with a Harvey*fn1 waiver.

The trial court concluded defendant was not suitable for probation, finding (1) the victim was particularly vulnerable, (2) defendant inflicted emotional injury with his crimes, (3) the degree of monetary loss was high, (4) the crimes were carried out with planning and sophistication, (5) defendant's criminal record showed a "pattern of regular or increasingly serious criminal conduct," (6) his prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory, (7) defendant was not genuinely remorseful, and (8) defendant will be a danger to others if not imprisoned. The trial court acknowledged that defendant expressed a willingness to comply with the terms of probation, but that factor did not outweigh the factors supporting denial of probation.

The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four years in state prison, awarded him 13 days of custody credit (9 actual and 4 conduct), ordered him to pay various fines and fees, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.