Filed 6/17/26 P. v. Diaz CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, B341142
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. YA107645)
v.
JOSE ANTONIO DIAZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Scott T. Millington, Judge. Affirmed.
Michael H. Casey, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Appellant Jose Antonio Diaz appeals from a judgment of
conviction for one count of injuring a person with whom he had a
dating relationship with a prior conviction, and one count of
vandalism under $400 in damage.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende),
Diaz’s appellate counsel requested that we review the record and
determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. We have
reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issues. We
affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Facts
A. Prosecution case
1. The incident
On March 12, 2023, at around 9:37 p.m., Lindsey Flook-
Stroup and her boyfriend, Chris Hugh, were driving on Hermosa
Avenue, in Hermosa Beach, California. Flook-Stroup noticed a
dispute between a man and a woman, later identified as Diaz and
Lucia L. She saw Diaz throw a water bottle toward Lucia L.’s
head, but it missed. Flook-Stroup and Hugh looped back around
and parked across the street from where Lucia L. and Diaz were
standing.
Flook-Stroup called 911. While on the phone with dispatch,
she observed Diaz hit Lucia L. in the face with a closed fist. Both
Flook-Stroup and Hugh saw Lucia L. fall to the ground after
being hit. According to Flook-Stroup, Diaz tried to pull up Lucia
L., but she resisted. Once Lucia L. got up, Diaz put one arm
around her to restrain her and shove her down the street. Soon
after, the police arrived and contacted Diaz and Lucia L.
2
2. Police investigation
Hermosa Beach police officers Luis Pineda and Stephanie
Deandrade responded to the 911 call. Pineda observed Diaz
pushing Lucia L. Pineda detained Diaz.
Deandrade described Lucia L. as intoxicated,
uncooperative, and crying. Pineda and Deandrade saw a red
mark on the right side of Lucia L.’s face. Deandrade also saw a
dent on the left side of Lucia L.’s forehead and red stains on her
lips that were consistent with dried blood. Deandrade did not see
any blood on Lucia L.’s chin, clothing, or hands. Lucia L.
declined medical treatment.
Lucia L. told Deandrade that at Baja Sharkeez, she and
Diaz argued because he was speaking to other females. She
believed she was hit inside Baja Sharkeez and fell.
Diaz was arrested. As Deandrade transported Diaz to the
police station, he screamed and kicked the window of the patrol
car with both feet. When they arrived at the station, Deandrade
observed that the right rear passenger side door was bent. She
saw a gap between the doorframe and the vehicle frame that was
not present when she started her shift. Diaz’s shoe matched the
shoe print on the car window.
3. Lucia L.’s trial testimony
Lucia L. testified that on March 12, 2023, during brunch
with a friend she consumed around 10 mimosas. At around 2:00
p.m., Lucia L. and her friend went to Baja Sharkeez to have more
drinks. Lucia L. then contacted Diaz, whom she had been dating
for about two years. She asked him to drive her home. Diaz
arrived at Baja Sharkeez around 6 p.m. Lucia L.’s friend left.
Lucia L. continued to drink alcohol with Diaz.
3
Lucia L. testified that she and Diaz did not argue inside
Baja Sharkeez. Instead, she felt sad and cried because she was
thinking about her past. She testified that she would become
emotional when intoxicated. According to Lucia L., when she and
Diaz walked outside, she tripped, fell forward, and scraped her
forehead. She recalled Diaz trying to pick her up, but she told
him to let her get up on her own.
Police officers stopped them. Lucia L. did not remember
where this occurred, only that it was dark outside. According to
Lucia L., when she spoke to the officers, she went in and out of
consciousness because of her intoxication. She remembered
speaking with the officers but did not generally remember what
she said. She denied that Diaz threw something at her or
punched her in the face. Lucia L. testified that she sustained
only a little scrape on her forehead from her fall and no other
injuries. She described the mark on the right side of her face as
“dirt” from her mascara. She stated that her face was red from
intoxication and a rosacea flare-up. Lucia L. testified that the
red mark on the lower part of her right chin existed before the
incident. She described the red stains on her lip as lip liner,
which would spread out after application due to her big lips.
Lucia L. further testified that she had contacted Diaz to
pick her up once before when she was intoxicated. She also
testified that she had previously been so intoxicated that she fell
and injured her face.
B. Defense case
Hermosa Beach Police Detective Brent Zuber reviewed
security camera footage around the incident, spoke with
witnesses, and tried to speak with Lucia L. Zuber did not find
any footage that captured the incident.
4
II. Procedure
The jury convicted Diaz of one count of injuring a person
with whom he had a dating relationship with a prior conviction
(Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1);1 count 1), and one count of
vandalism under $400 in damage (§ 594, subd. (a); count 2).
Diaz waived his rights to have the court or the jury
determine the prior convictions allegation for count 1 under
section 273.5, subdivision (f)(1) for his prior conviction for
violating section 273.5, subdivision (a) in cases PA083670 and
NA115328 in the Los Angeles Superior Court. He admitted the
truth of these prior convictions to enhance punishment for count
1, to deny probation under section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), and to
impose the upper term based on the aggravating factor that his
convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness under
California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2).
Diaz also waived his right to have the court or the jury
determine the allegation for a prior felony conviction under the
Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)–
(d)). He further admitted the truth of the allegation.
The court imposed 8 years for count 1, calculated as the
mid-term doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law. The court
imposed a consecutive 180 days for count 2. The court ordered
that Diaz pay restitution in the stipulated amount of $130, as
well as mandatory fines and fees.
The total aggregate term was 8 years and 180 days in state
prison. The court awarded presentence custody credit of 322
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
5
days and presentence conduct credit of 322 days for a total of 644
days.2
DISCUSSION
Independent Review Pursuant to People v. Wende
We appointed counsel to represent Diaz on appeal. Counsel
filed an opening brief that includes the facts and procedural
history of the case and requests that we review the record and
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Counsel advised Diaz of the
right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date
that he filed the opening brief. To date, Diaz has not filed a
supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that
no arguable issues exist, and Diaz’s counsel has fully satisfied his
responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)
2 On August 22, 2025, the trial court modified the amount of
credit to 648 days.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
HANASONO, J.
We concur:
ADAMS, Acting P. J.
OCHOA, J.*
* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
7