P. v. Garza
Filed 1/9/09 P. v. Garza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. NOE GARZA, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | E045655 (Super.Ct.No. INF048107) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. William S. Lebov*and David B. Downing, Judges. Affirmed.
Sheila OConnor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
A complaint filed on August 17, 2004, charged defendant and appellant Noe Garza, Jr., with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury in violation of Penal[1]Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1) (count 1); and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or former spouse in violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a) (count 2). Under section 667.5, subdivision (b), the complaint also alleged that defendant had been previously convicted of the crime of spousal abuse.
On August 5, 2005, pursuant to defense counsels motion, the trial court appointed psychologist Michael Leitman to conduct a competency examination on defendant. On September 6, 2005, after reviewing the psychologists report, the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial under section 1368.
On March 3, 2006, the trial court granted defendants oral motion to waive counsel and represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562].
Prior to trial, on May 29, 2007, defendant admitted his prior conviction. On May 31, 2007, the jury found defendant guilty as charged.
On March 11, 2008, the trial court imposed the upper term of four years for both counts 1 and 2, and stayed the time imposed on count 2 under section 654. Moreover, the trial court imposed a one-year sentence on the prior to run consecutive to the sentence imposed on count 1, for a total of five years. The court awarded defendant 1,737 days of credit for time served, consisting of 1,159 actual days served and 578 days of work/conduct credit under section 4019. The court imposed a $200 fine under section 1202.45, subdivision (b).
Thereafter, defendants motion for a new trial under section 1181 was heard and denied.
Defendant appeals.
II
FACTS
On August 15, 2004, Mrs. Garza, spouse of defendant, arranged a meeting between defendant and his five-year-old daughter, C. C. had been asking Mrs. Garza to see defendant, her father. That same day, Mrs. Garza, with C. and her 15-year-old daughter, Carmen, drove to Coachella where defendant was living. When Mrs. Garza arrived, defendant came over to the drivers side window and attempted to take the keys out of the ignition and pull Mrs. Garza from the car. Once Mrs. Garza got out of the car, defendant hit her, pulled her to the ground and kicked her.
After the neighbors intervened, Mrs. Garza retrieved her keys, got back into the car, and drove away. Mrs. Garza flagged down a police offer. She reported the incident to the deputy.
III
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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] 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, which he has not done.
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.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
/s/ Richli
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Judge Lebov is a retired judge of the Yolo County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
