P. v. Marchetti
Filed 1/8/13 P.
v. Marchetti CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
DARRELL
JOSEPH MARCHETTI,
Defendant and
Appellant.
C070143
(Super. Ct. No. 11F03559)
Counsel
for defendant Darrell Joseph Marchetti has filed an
of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether
there are any arguable issues on
appeal.
title="">
judgment.
We
provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
Defendant
and Paula Patterson lived together in a motor home. On the night of May 15, 2011, after Patterson went to bed, defendant used a knife to cut through
the bamboo door that hung in front of the bedroom. Patterson opened the door to investigate and
was confronted by defendant holding a knife.
She pushed defendant toward the kitchen and onto the floor, grabbed the
knife and threw it in the sink.
As
Patterson looked around for something to protect herself with, defendant
grabbed a large glass bottle from under the table and struck her two or three
times in the stomach. When Patterson
doubled over in pain, defendant used the bottle to strike her twice on the
chin. The force of the blows broke her
dentures and cut her mouth.
After
the confrontation, Patterson went back to the bedroom. Still in pain, she went into the bathroom for
awhile, and then tried to leave the motor home.
As she left the bathroom, defendant threatened to kill her. When she reached the door to try to exit the
motor home, he told her it was dangerous outside and she could not leave. Patterson again returned to the bedroom. Approximately 30 minutes later, defendant came
in and lit on fire the blanket covering Patterson. Patterson was able to immediately extinguish
the fire. Defendant also broke
Patterson’s cell phone.
The
next morning, Patterson told defendant she was going to the food bank. After she got away from the motor home and
defendant, she called the police from a pay phone. After speaking to Patterson, officers went to
the motor home. As they arrested
defendant, he made the spontaneous statement that he did not hit Patterson with
a bottle.
Defendant
was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)),
making criminal threats (§ 422), false imprisonment (§ 236), and two
misdemeanor counts of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)). It was also alleged, and defendant admitted,
he had a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b) through (i)). The jury found him guilty of assault with a
deadly weapon and inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and he was
acquitted on the remaining charges.
Prior
to sentencing, defendant filed a request for the trial court to dismiss his
prior strike conviction pursuant to section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and to
reduce the offenses to misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision
(b). The trial court denied those
requests and sentenced defendant to six years, with
conduct days pursuant to section 4019.
The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees,
including a $200 restitution fine and a suspended $200 parole revocation fine.
There
is an error on the abstract of judgment in that it indicates defendant received
credit for 263 actual days. The trial
court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to specify that defendant
received 236 actual days of credit.
Defendant
appeals.
Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. The trial court is
directed to correct the abstract of judgment to indicate defendant received 236
actual days of credit and to forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract
of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NICHOLSON , J.
We
concur:
RAYE , P. J.
DUARTE , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Defendant was advised by
counsel of the 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.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Further undesignated
statutory references are to the Penal Code.
