P. v Valerio
Filed 7/29/13 P. v Valerio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
URIEL TORRES VALERIO,
Defendant and Appellant.
C072402
(Super. Ct. No. 12F03257)
Appointed
counsel for defendant Uriel Torres Valerio has asked us to review the record to
determine whether there exist any arguable
issues on appeal. (
436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
A jury
found defendant guilty of assault with a
deadly weapon (Pen. Code,
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count I), making criminal threats (§ 422; count
II), and two counts of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); counts III
& IV). The jury found defendant used
a deadly weapon in the commission of count II.
(§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).)
The trial
court sentenced defendant to four years in state
prison on count I and two years plus one year for the deadly weapon
enhancement on count II, stayed pursuant to section 654. The court sentenced defendant to 30 days
concurrent on count III and 30 days stayed on count IV. The court also imposed the following fines
and fees: $240 restitution fines in
accordance with sections 1202.4 and 1202.45; victim restitution of $1,174.25
(§ 1202.4, subd. (f)); a main jail booking fee of $340 (Gov. Code,
§ 29550.2); and a main jail classification fee of $62 (Gov. Code,
§ 29550.2). The court credited
defendant with 354 days of presentence custody credit (177 actual & 177
conduct).
Carlos Gomes
owned an automobile detailing shop in Sacramento
and defendant sometimes worked for Gomes.
In January 2012, Gomes sold a car to defendant for payments; Gomes kept
the pink slip. Defendant soon stopped
making payments; on May 2, 2012,
Gomes caused the car to be towed. That
same afternoon, defendant went to Gomes’s auto shop and demanded the return of
the car, threatening Gomes. Defendant
left and Gomes reported the incident to the police.
About 7:00 p.m. on May 2, Edith Villanueva and
Oliva Garcia drove into the driveway of the residence they shared with
Gomes. Each testified they saw
defendant, with whom they were acquainted, pouring sugar into the gas tank of a
Chevy Camaro belonging to Gomes. Robert
Mijach, who lived next door to Gomes, saw a man pouring sugar into the gas tank
of the Camaro as Villanueva and Garcia drove up. Mijach was unable to identify defendant in
court as the man he had seen.
During the
morning of May 3, 2012,
Gomes was at his shop, crouched down, working on a car door. Defendant came up behind Gomes, grabbed him
by the neck, choked him, and placed a knife to his throat. Defendant told Gomes he was going to kill him
and moved the knife to Gomes’s cheek and ribs while making threats. Gomes feared he was going to be killed. Defendant threw Gomes to the ground and hit
him.
Sanjeev
Mishra, who worked in an auto repair shop next to that of Gomes and was
acquainted with defendant, heard yelling and screaming coming from Gomes’s
shop. Mishra went to see what was
happening and saw defendant holding Gomes from behind with one arm and holding
a knife to Gomes’s neck with the other.
Mishra called 911 and defendant ran.
When Mishra spoke to the police he described defendant as “a
light-skinned Black guy.†However,
Mishra identified defendant in court as the person he had seen attacking Gomes.
Deputy
Sheriff Darren Benato responded to Gomes’s shop about 10:15 a.m. Benato saw injuries to Gomes’s face, eye,
forehead, and left hand. Benato did not
see any injuries to Gomes’s neck and Gomes did not mention having been choked.
Jeremy
Armstrong, called by the defense, testified that he and defendant are friends
and that Armstrong’s sister is defendant’s girlfriend. On May 3, 2012, Armstrong went to
defendant’s residence around 9:30 to 10:00 a.m., and defendant arrived
about 20 minutes later. The two walked
to a 7-Eleven and returned 15 minutes later.
Armstrong did not see any blood on defendant’s clothing or any injury to
defendant’s hands or anything unusual about defendant’s behavior.
Defendant
did not testify.
Counsel
filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this
court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental
brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. He has done so, in the form of an index
card-sized letter, containing six nearly unintelligible “points.â€
As we
interpret defendant’s letter, he claims that the evidence presented to support
his convictions is insufficient for several reasons: 1) the
police never found a weapon near him; 2)
the police did not see any blood on him when he was arrested shortly
after the assault; 3) Mishra described
the assailant as a Black man, whereas defendant is Hispanic; and 4) when Gomes testified that he paid to fix the
cars with sugar in their tanks, the court found he was lying.
To the
limited extent that these claims show conflicts in the evidence presented at
trial, such conflicts were for the jury to resolve. “[A] reviewing court resolves neither
credibility issues nor evidentiary
conflicts. [Citation]. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies
in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.]
Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently
improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a
conviction. [Citation.]†(People
v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) To the limited extent that defendant’s
assertions may be relevant to the strength and nature of the evidence presented
at trial, the record does not support the assertions. As we have described ante, ample evidence supports defendant’s convictions.
Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
DUARTE , J.
We concur:
MAURO , Acting P. J.
HOCH , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further undesignated statutory references are
to the Penal Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] The letter also contains references to the
car’s pink slip, a traffic ticket, and an oath.
