P. v. Gibson
Filed 12/3/12
P. v. Gibson CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
REGINALD GIBSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
B236163
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA086567)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Jose I. Sandoval, Judge.
Affirmed.
Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * *
* *
Appellant Reginald Gibson was
convicted of two counts of assault with a
deadly weapon following a bench trial.
Pursuant to
(Wende), appellant’s counsel filed an
opening brief requesting that this court review the record and determine
whether any arguable issues exist on
appeal. We have reviewed the entire
record and find no arguable issue. We
affirm.
As required
by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106, 124, we provide a brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case.
In an amended information, appellant was charged with two
counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),
identifying Glendall Ruffie and Barry Barnfield as victims. With respect to the assault on Ruffie, it was
alleged appellant inflicted great bodily injury. A prior serious felony conviction was alleged
(§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
Prior to trial, appellant was given in pro. per.
status. When he requested to relinquish
his in pro. per. status, his motion was granted. The charges were tried in a bench trial after
appellant waived jury trial on the current offenses and the prior offense.
The evidence at trial showed that on August 14, 2010,
appellant struck Ruffie on her arm with a baseball bat, fracturing her arm and
requiring her to have multiple surgeries.
After hitting Ruffie, appellant struck Barnfield in the head and
back. Appellant denied striking either
Ruffie or Barnfield and denied owning a bat.
A fingerprint expert testified that appellant’s prints
were the same as the prints in the priors packet from the
archives bearing appellant’s name.
The court found all allegations true.
After trial, appellant sought and was granted in pro.
per. status. At the sentencing hearing,
the court revoked appellant’s in pro. per. status when appellant refused to
speak. Counsel was appointed to
represent him. When appellant was
disruptive during sentencing he was removed from the courtroom.
The court denied appellant’s Romero motion. (
18-year prison term. The court
terminated appellant’s probation in a different case.
We denied appellant’s request to proceed in pro. per. on
appeal. We appointed counsel to
represent appellant. After review of the
record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this
court to review the record independently pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at page 441. On July 26, 2012, we
advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or
issues that he wished us to consider. We
granted appellant’s request for a continuance to file a supplemental brief. Appellant filed an untimely brief on November
5, 2012, describing his medical condition, acknowledging notice of counsel’s
intent to file a Wende brief and
acknowledging receipt of the record on appeal, and describing the denial of his
requests for library privileges and alleged mistreatment by prison staff.
We conclude that no arguable
issue exists and that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his
responsibilities. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 118-119;
supplemental brief and conclude he raises no issue relevant to this
appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
FLIER,
J.
We concur:
BIGELOW,
P. J.
GRIMES,
J.
