P. v. Lenoir
Filed 11/4/08 P. v. Lenoir CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRUSSO LENOIR, Defendant and Appellant. | A120393 (ContaCostaCounty Super. Ct. No. 05-071455-0) |
Defendant Brusso Lenoir appeals from convictions for two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, felony battery, and misdemeanor battery. The trial court placed him on probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days in the county jail. Defendants counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no arguable issues and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2007, defendant was in a romantic relationship with Martha Ruby Gonzalez-Medina (Ruby), the daughter of Fermin Medina (Fermin) and Martha Gonzalez-Medina (Martha). In July 2007, Fermin invited defendant and Ruby to move in with him and Martha after they lost their apartment. On August 13, Fermin asked defendant and Ruby to move out. Fermin and defendant argued, and Fermin locked defendant out of the house. Defendant started screaming and hitting the door; he and Ruby left after the police came in response to a 911 call from Fermin.
The following day, August 14, 2007, defendant and Ruby returned to her parents house. Fermin did not allow defendant inside and defendant started kicking the door. Fermin opened the door; defendant took a swing at him and then moved back. Fermin followed and challenged defendant to a fight, but then walked away after defendant accepted.
Defendant took a sword out of his car and moved towards Fermin, swinging the sword. Fermin ran up to defendant and grabbed the sword on the blade and handle. The men struggled over the sword, and Martha ran up and grabbed the sword as well. Fermin and Martha fell to the ground. Martha held the blade away from herself and Fermin until the police arrived.[1]
Fermin had lacerations on both of his hands and his face was swollen below his right eye. Martha lost a pint of blood in the incident, both her hands were scarred, and she required surgery on her right hand. Defendant had a cut in his mouth but no other injuries.
In September 2007, the District Attorney for Contra Costa County filed an information charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon on Fermin and Martha (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1))[2](counts one and two), with great bodily injury enhancements ( 12022.7, subd. (a)). The district attorney also charged defendant with battery causing serious bodily injury on Fermin and Martha ( 242, 243, subd. (d)).
The jury found defendant guilty of the assault charges, but it did not find true the great bodily injury enhancements. The jury also found defendant guilty of misdemeanor battery on Fermin and felony battery on Martha. The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days in the county jail.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record and have found no arguable appellate issues. Defendant was represented by legal counsel throughout the proceedings. There were no prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence at trial. The jury was properly instructed on the elements of the charged offenses and lesser included offenses. Substantial evidence supports the jurys verdict. The trial courts sentence was proper.
Appellate counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this courts attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Defendant did not file a supplementary brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
We concur.
NEEDHAM, J.
DONDERO, J.*
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] This account of the incident is based on Fermins trial testimony. Marthas testimony and the testimony of a neighbor were generally consistent with Fermins account. Rubys trial testimony was consistent with Fermins testimony, but differed from a statement she gave to a police officer at the scene. She told the officer that Fermin insulted defendant, that he picked up a boulder to use against defendant, that Fermin punched her when she tried to intervene, and that defendant did not wield the sword in a threatening manner. Ruby was not fully confronted with the discrepancies at trial because she became ill and was unable to complete her testimony. The parties stipulated to various facts regarding Ruby and the court advised the jury that, in deciding the case, it could consider Rubys partial testimony, her out-of-court statements, and the absence of cross-examination.
[2] All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
* Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
