Filed 10/5/18 P. v. Grajiola 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
ROBERT JOSEPH GRAJIOLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. F16905021)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Joseph Grajiola asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Defendant met Jose Villasenor through a friend in July 2016. Villasenor hired defendant to help paint his sister’s house on August 8, 2016. Villasenor gave defendant a cell phone so defendant could contact Villasenor to arrange to do the painting. The phone was not yet activated and its price was to be withheld from defendant’s pay for the painting.
Defendant never called Villasenor, and when Villasenor saw defendant on August 8, 2016, Villasenor repeatedly asked for the cell phone. Defendant said Villasenor had given it to him. Villasenor threatened to call the police. Eventually, defendant pulled out a BB gun and shot Villasenor in the eye. The injury required two surgeries and caused a loss of vision in that eye.
Defendant was arrested the next day.
On July 21, 2017, defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1);[1] count 1). The information further alleged defendant inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), had suffered a prior felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), had suffered a prior conviction of a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On September 25, 2017, a jury found defendant guilty of count 1 and found true the great bodily injury allegation. The next day, defendant admitted the remaining three special allegations.
On October 25, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years in prison: the middle term of three years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus a three-year great bodily injury enhancement and a five-year serious felony enhancement. The court dismissed the prior prison term enhancements, awarded credits, and imposed various fines and fees.
The same day, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record, and we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
