legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Blackburn

P. v. Blackburn
12:09:2012






P






P. v. Blackburn>























Filed 7/11/12 P. v. Blackburn CA4/2













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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>



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO






>






THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



DUANE BLACKBURN,



Defendant and Appellant.








E054909



(Super.Ct.No. RIF1101439)



OPINION






APPEAL
from the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Riverside
County. Becky Dugan,
Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick
DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

On
February 9, 2011, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Duane
Blackburn with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury
under Penal Codehref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1); and
assault causing serious bodily injury upon the same victim under section 243,
subdivision (d) (count 2). As to count
1, the complaint also alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily
injury on the victim during the commission of the offense within the meaning of
section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). The
complaint further alleged that defendant (1) had a prior conviction for href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">possession of an assault rifle with a gang
allegation under section 12880, subdivision (b) and section 186.22,
subdivision (b), and did not remain free of prison custody for, and did commit
an offense resulting in a felony conviction during, a period of five years
under section 667.5, subdivision (b); and (2) had a strike prior under sections
1170.12, subdivision (c)(1) and 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1).

On
March 22, 2011,
the trial court declared doubt as to defendant’s mental competence; proceedings
were ordered suspended under section 1368.
Two reports as to defendant’s mental competence were prepared and filed,
leading counsel to stipulate to the appointment of a third doctor to prepare an
additional report. A third report was
filed on June 17, 2011.
After a hearing, the trial court found defendant mentally competent to
stand trial. Criminal proceedings were
reinstated.

Pursuant
to a plea agreement, defendant
admitted his guilt to the battery with serious bodily injury count, and
admitted the validity of the alleged strike prior, in exchange for a dismissal
of the balance of the enhancements and a stipulated six-year state prison
sentence. The trial court therefore
sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years, doubled, as agreed. No presentence custody credits were awarded
under the plea agreement. The trial
court ordered a $200 restitution fine under section 1202.4, and an additional
$200 parole revocation fine, suspended pending successful completion of parole.

A
timely notice of appeal challenging
the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea was filed on November
1, 2011.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

No
preliminary hearing was held and a preparation of a probation report was
waived. As a factual basis for the plea,
defendant admitted it was true that on February 3, 2011, he did willfully and unlawfully batter,
Michael Valdez, and in doing so, inflicted serious bodily injury upon him.

ANALYSIS

After defendant appealed, and
upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority
of People
v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.

We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief
, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People
v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of
the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL
REPORTS



MCKINSTER

J.





We concur:



RAMIREZ

P.
J.

KING

J.







id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise specified.








Description On February 9, 2011, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Duane Blackburn with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under Penal Code[1] section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1); and assault causing serious bodily injury upon the same victim under section 243, subdivision (d) (count 2). As to count 1, the complaint also alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim during the commission of the offense within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). The complaint further alleged that defendant (1) had a prior conviction for possession of an assault rifle with a gang allegation under section 12880, subdivision (b) and section 186.22, subdivision (b), and did not remain free of prison custody for, and did commit an offense resulting in a felony conviction during, a period of five years under section 667.5, subdivision (b); and (2) had a strike prior under sections 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1) and 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1).
On March 22, 2011, the trial court declared doubt as to defendant’s mental competence; proceedings were ordered suspended under section 1368. Two reports as to defendant’s mental competence were prepared and filed, leading counsel to stipulate to the appointment of a third doctor to prepare an additional report. A third report was filed on June 17, 2011. After a hearing, the trial court found defendant mentally competent to stand trial. Criminal proceedings were reinstated.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale