P. v. Barajas
Filed 10/16/08 P. v. Barajas CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN BARAJAS, Defendant and Appellant. | F054460 (Super. Ct. No. F07400649) OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeff Bird, Commissioner.
Oliver J. Northup, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 25, 2007, an information was filed charging appellant, Martin Barajas, with attempted murder (count one; Pen. Code 664/187(a));[1]corporal injury to a cohabitant (count two; 273.5(a)), with an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury in circumstances involving domestic violence ( 12022.7(e)); assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (count three; 245(a)(1)), with an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury in circumstances involving domestic violence ( 12022.7(e)); and battery with serious bodily injury (count four; 243(d)).
On October 18, 2007, Barajas entered a plea of no contest to count two, and admitted inflicting great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7(e); counts one, three and four were dismissed on the district attorneys motion.
On November 20, 2007, the court sentenced Barajas to the mid-term of three years and the mid-term of four years on the enhancement, to run consecutive to the three year sentence, for a total of seven years; imposed $1,400 in restitution fines pursuant to sections 1202.4(b) and 1202.45, reserving jurisdiction over the issue of victim restitution, ordered payment of a $20 courthouse security fee, and allowed pre-sentence custody credits of 59 actual days plus 8 days conduct credit for a total of 67 days.
On December 18, 2007, Barajas filed a notice of appeal.
FACTS[2]
On September 22, 2007, Barajas and his girlfriend, A.S., who had been cohabitants for a year and a half, attended a party at Barajass uncles house at which they argued about the attention Barajas was paying to other girls at the party and his lack of attention to A.S. At a security guards insistence, A.S. left the party and began walking home. About 15 minutes later, Barajas drove by in his aunts car. He left the car and came up behind A.S. and knocked her to the ground. She rose and he struck her, causing her to fall to the ground once more. After four more blows to her head and face, she lost consciousness. Witnesses driving by saw Barajas hitting and kicking her as she lay motionless on the ground. The witnesses called 911. A.S. was transported to the hospital and officers detained Barajas, whose blood alcohol level at the time was .19. A.S. spent the next 12 days in the hospital, part of the time in the intensive care unit, drifting in and out of consciousness, undergoing two surgeries in which metal plates were inserted into the facial area, and was still receiving mental/emotional and physical therapy at the time of the sentencing hearing.
On May 15, 2008, Barajass appellate counsel filed an appellants opening brief requesting us to conduct an independent review of the entire record and informing us he advised Barajas of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. On May 15, 2008, we also advised Barajas he had 30 days within which to submit a letter stating any grounds of appeal he wanted us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Barajass appellate counsel has complied fully with his professional responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
* Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Hill, J.
[1]Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2]These facts are taken from the November 8, 2007 probation officers report.
