People v. Brogdon CA4/2

statement of the case, and identifying three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the

court sentenced defendant in accordance with his plea agreement; (2) whether the court

properly imposed the upper term of three years on the threatening the commit a crime

count; and (3) whether the court had jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to

withdraw his guilty plea.

Defendant was offered the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has done. Defendant enumerates five contentions on appeal: (1) that Senate Bill

No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which was codified in section 1171.1. (Stats. 2021, ch.

728, § 3) somehow applies because it “clearly states that the same case against the same

person would be only one strike against [defendant] not two”; (2) pursuant to

section “1170.1 and perhaps People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, 646,” he should

have only one, not two, strikes against him; (3) we should consider that he suffers from a

major mental illness and consider the application of Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg.

Sess.) and Senate Bill No. 82; (4) he questions whether “859 credit comp. no longer

2 exist—only 809? Just 20 days more or less”;…