Filed 7/9/26 P. v. Miranda 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D085839
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD304205)
JONATHAN INDA MIRANDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Aaron H. Katz, Judge. Affirmed.
Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Jonathan Inda Miranda of assault by means of force
likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and
found true allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury
(§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court found true that
Miranda had a 2012 juvenile adjudication that was a strike (§§ 1203, subd.
(e)(4), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, and 668). It denied Miranda probation,
denied his request to strike his strike conviction and imposed a six-year term:
the three-year midterm doubled for the strike. The court struck the
punishment for the great bodily injury allegations. It awarded Miranda 36
days of credit (32 actual days and four section 2933.1 credits). It ordered
Miranda to pay a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $30 criminal
conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $1,800 restitution fine
under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). The court suspended another $1,800
fine under section 1202.45 unless Miranda’s supervision was revoked.
Miranda’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief
raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We invited
Miranda to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so.
Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by
Anders and Wende, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2024, R.A. was working as an Amazon delivery driver and
heading downtown to do a delivery. His girlfriend, C.L. was in the passenger
seat of the car, accompanying him. As R.A. was getting close to a light, a car
cut him off, and R.A. honked at it. The other vehicle started slowing down
and “brake-check[ed]” him. R.A. and C.L. saw the driver, who they identified
1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
as Miranda, staring at them through his side mirror. R.A. was in a hurry to
make his deliveries, so he passed the other car and headed to the apartment
complex that was his destination.
R.A. parked his car in a driveway area and saw another vehicle pull up
into the parking garage. As he was asking C.L. if it was the car that cut him
off, R.A. saw Miranda walking towards them. Miranda said something,
staring directly at him. R.A. exited his car and heard Miranda say, “What
the fuck.” R.A. walked toward Miranda and the men argued about why R.A.
honked at Miranda, R.A. explaining that Miranda had cut him off. R.A. said
he was there to do deliveries, but Miranda said “Fuck you,” and punched R.A.
in the jaw. Miranda swung at R.A. first. C.L., who had also exited the car,
saw Miranda hit R.A.. R.A. tried to throw a punch back, but Miranda lunged
forward and started attacking R.A., hitting him in the head, nose and mouth.
R.A. then grabbed Miranda’s shirt, and the men fell to the ground. Miranda
got on top of R.A. and was hitting him in the head, ribs, and back. R.A. tried
to get away and back up, but was dazed. Miranda again approached him and
hit R.A. again in the face, causing him to lose consciousness, but R.A.
regained consciousness and was able to get up only to have Miranda start
hitting him again. R.A. felt a hard blow to his leg and he buckled and fell to
the ground, defenseless, with Miranda “upper cutting” him in the left eye
multiple times and “everywhere.” Miranda finally stopped and said, “You’re
lucky that I wasn’t even that mad,” walking back to his car. C.L. estimated
that Miranda hit R.A. more than 20 times.
C.L. called 911 and took R.A. to the emergency room. He had a broken
nose, a broken left eye socket, a fractured leg, and four broken ribs. He
underwent surgeries and was hospitalized for five days. C.L. did not see R.A.
3
lunge at Miranda before Miranda punched him. A responding detective did
not see any apparent injuries on Miranda on his arrest about a month later.
A surveillance camera caught the two vehicles in the parking garage,
and a portion of the altercation. On viewing the video, R.A. agreed he walked
up to Miranda and most of what happened occurred after he had approached
Miranda. R.A. agreed he had told officers that Miranda exited his vehicle
cussing at him, they argued, and the fight ensued. R.A. also testified that he
did not remember everything he had told officers.
Miranda’s wife and sister testified that as Miranda was driving them
and Miranda’s niece back from church that morning, it was R.A who
suddenly cut them off and honked at them as he drove around them.
Miranda’s wife characterized both R.A. and C.L. as looking “very angry” and
“very aggressive.” She testified that R.A. approached Miranda and put
himself in a fighting stance, with his fist out and one leg behind the other.
Miranda’s sister stated that Miranda was trying to avoid the fight, that R.A.
wanted to fight, and R.A.’s girlfriend, who was cursing at her, was
encouraging her boyfriend to fight. Miranda’s wife claimed both R.A. and
Miranda were fighting, and Miranda was stepping away, with R.A. going
toward him. According to Miranda’s wife and sister, after the fight, Miranda
apologized and told the man he was not trying to fight and was sorry.
Miranda’s wife denied that Miranda ever walked towards R.A., but she
believed Miranda’s punches on R.A. “were landing.” She admitted Miranda
did not have any injuries from the incident, and she did not call the police to
report what she saw.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the
court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in
4
compliance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified one
possible issue that this court considered in evaluating the potential merits of
this appeal. Counsel asks “[w]hether the evidence sufficiently supported the
conviction or did it alternatively support a finding of self-defense.”
We have reviewed the entire record as required under Wende and
Anders, and considered the potential issues raised by Miranda’s appointed
counsel. We hold substantial evidence supports Miranda’s conviction.
(See People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028 [holding it “well
established” that “the use of hands or fists alone may support a conviction of
assault ‘by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury’ ”].) This court
does not reweigh conflicts in the evidence or assess witness credibility in
assessing the sufficiency of the evidence. (People v. Zaragoza (2016) 1
Cal.5th 21, 44 [it is not the reviewing court’s task to “resolve credibility
issues or evidentiary conflicts,” in resolving a sufficiency of the evidence
challenge “nor is it to inquire whether the evidence might reasonably be
reconciled with the defendant’s innocence”].) “ ‘ “[U]nless the testimony is
physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness
is sufficient to support a conviction.” ’ ” (People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th
756, 827-828.) There are no other arguable issues that would result in a
reversal or modification of the judgment. Competent counsel has represented
Miranda on this appeal.
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
6