P. v. Ochoa
Filed 12/2/08 P. v. Ochoa CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE CARLOS OCHOA Defendant and Appellant. | F055126 (Super. Ct. No. VCF170005A) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge.
Rebecca P. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On September 2, 2006, at approximately 8:00 p.m., in Tulare, Rose Rodriquez was in a car driven by Alejandro Govea when she noticed they were being followed by a car. Rodriquez told Govea to stop at a friends house and she drove from there. While Rodriquezs car was stopped, the other car turned around. As Rodriquez drove away, the other car got behind them again. Rodriquez turned into an alley and someone from the other car started shooting at Rodriquez and Govea. One shot hit Govea in the skull but did not penetrate it.
Tulare Police Officer Priscilla Solis was on patrol when she heard shots and saw a small dark colored car pass in front of her. Solis pulled in behind the car and attempted to stop it after seeing it alternate between speeding up and slowing down. The car stopped and three Hispanic males got out and ran away. Solis found a loaded SKS assault rifle in the trunk. The car was registered to appellant, Jose Ochoa.
On September 3, 2006, Ochoa reported his car stolen. On September 5, 2006, he went to the police station to pick up his car and was arrested. During a police interview, Ochoa admitted driving the car during the shooting and identified Juan Montenegro as the shooter. Ochoa also claimed that people from the other car were shooting at them and Montenegro returned fire.
Ochoa took Tulare Police Sergeant Brian Haney to where Montenegro and Luis Montiel were living. Haney served a search warrant at that location and arrested both of them. During a search of the residence, the officers found numerous pictures of Montenegro throwing gang signs. Montiel was interviewed by police and stated that during the shooting he was sitting in the back seat, Ochoa was driving, and Montenegro was seated in the front passengers seat. He also told the officers that he placed the assault rifle in the trunk through a hole in the divider between the back seat and the trunk area.
On December 15, 2006, the district attorneys office filed an information charging Ochoa and Montenegro with several offenses and enhancements. The information charged Ochoa with two counts each of attempted murder (counts 1 & 2/Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a))[1]and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 5 & 6/ 245, subd. (b)), and one count each of allowing a firearm to be discharged from a vehicle (count 3/ 12034, subd. (c)) and discharging a firearm at a vehicle (count 4/ 246). The six counts also alleged various gang and arming enhancements.
On September 4, 2007, the court heard and denied Ochoas Marsden[2]motion.
On January 22, 2008, Ochoa pled no contest to the two attempted murder counts and admitted a gun enhancement ( 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)) in each count in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancements and a lid of 19 years four months.
On March 6, 2008, the court sentenced Ochoa to an aggregate term of 19 years, the aggravated term of nine years on his attempted murder conviction in count 1 and a 10-year arming enhancement in that count, and a concurrent, aggregate 19-year term on count 2 and the arming enhancement in that count.
Ochoas appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Ochoa has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2]People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
