P. v. Meza
Filed 9/23/11 P. v. Meza CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE H. MEZA, Defendant and Appellant. | D058998 (Super. Ct. No. SCD224407) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joseph P. Brannigan, Judge. Affirmed.
A jury convicted Jorge Hernandez Meza of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,[1] § 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true an allegation that Meza personally used a deadly weapon (§ 1192.7, subds. (c)(8), (c)(23)), and an enhancement for personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court found true two prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The allegation of a prior "strike" was dismissed on motion of the prosecution.
Meza was sentenced to a determinate term of seven years in prison.
Meza field a timely notice of appeal.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Meza the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but Meza has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Meza assaulted Efren Gonzales at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting on November 19, 2009. Meza struck Gonzales in the head with a 32-ounce beer bottle. Meza was identified by Gonzales and others as the assailant. His DNA was found on the beer bottle. Meza then left the room where the assault occurred.
DISCUSSION
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Did the trial court err in denying Meza's motion to exclude DNA evidence and,
2. Did the court err by giving the jury a flight instruction
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Meza on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
McDONALD, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
