Filed 9/2/26 P. v. Zavala 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
(Yuba)
THE PEOPLE, C105644
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No.
v. CRF200091601)
JOEL AYALA ZAVALA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Joel Ayala Zavala asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result
in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
On May 30, 2020, the victim saw defendant and another person standing outside
her house. Defendant was holding a gun and fired the gun multiple times into the
victim’s house.
Defendant pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (b))1 and admitted a firearm enhancement allegation (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 13 years
in prison. It awarded 136 days of presentence credit and imposed a $300 restitution fine
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations
assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code,
§ 70373), and $3,030.92 in victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)). Defendant did not
object to the fines, assessments, or victim restitution. But he subsequently filed a motion
in the trial court requesting a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261
and related law, along with resentencing under section 1170.1 et seq. The trial court
denied the motion, finding that defendant had been fully advised of his rights and
voluntarily entered into the plea agreement. Defendant appealed from the denial of his
motion. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel
of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening
brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
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.
/S/
MAURO, J.
We concur:
/S/
HULL, Acting P. J.
/S/
ROBIE, J.
2