P. v. Jacques

Filed 3/2/09 P. v. Jacques CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Horan, Judge. Affirmed.

Syda Kosofsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Ronald Dawnay Jacques appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted in count 1 of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, 242), a lesser offense to battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, 243, subd. (d)), and in count 2 of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, 240), a lesser offense to assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced in count 1 to jail for six months and given credit for 146 days. He received a six-month sentence in count 2 which was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654.

On December 20, 2007, appellant waived his right to counsel and represented himself.

On January 8, 2008, appellants motion to withdraw his pro. per. status was granted.

On February 14, 2008, appellants motions to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 and to change venue were denied. Additionally, his motion pursuant to Evidence Code section 402 to exclude photographs of the victim was denied.

On February 15, 2008, appellants Marsden[1]motion was denied.

The evidence at trial established that on November 20, 2007, at approximately 1:40 a.m., Steven Bailey heard a female yelling, Help, hes killing me. Why are you hurting me like this? Bailey called the police. Pomona Police Officer Kristian Gutierrez responded to the call and observed Rebecca Clancy lying in a flower bed with appellant straddling her. Appellant appeared to be striking her. Officer Gutierrez ordered appellant to stop and get up and appellant complied. Clancy had blood all over her face and her blond hair was very red from the blood. She had many injuries on her scalp and had swelling to her lip. Clancy stated appellant was kicking the shit out of [her]. Officer Gutierrez did not notice any visible injuries to appellants face or neck and did not notice any cuts on his hands. Officer Gutierrez photographed the blood that was on appellants hands.

Clancy testified appellant hit her numerous times with his fists and had his hands around her throat indicating he was going to choke [her] out. Clancy suffered a deep gash over her ear, a swollen jaw, and a chipped tooth. She skinned her shoulders, elbows, knees, and hip. Clancy believed that during the course of the attack she lost consciousness. Paramedics suggested she get stitches at the hospital, but she declined.

Appellant testified that he was trying to recover money he had given Clancy for oral sex, which she had failed to perform. Appellant did not strike Clancy, but she may have hit her head when she fell to the ground. Appellant tried to keep Clancy from attacking him. He received a deep gash on his hand that was bleeding profusely. There were no cuts or bruises on Clancy and appellant believed the blood on Clancy was his own.

After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On October 29, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider and we have received no response to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUZUKAWA, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

WILLHITE, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.