P. v. Ochoa
Filed 11/28/07 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. GENARO CAMACHO OCHOA, Defendant and Appellant. | F052407 (Super. Ct. No. F06101119) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. W. Kent Hamlin, Judge.
Richard M. Doctoroff, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On November 21, 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Genaro Ochoa pled no contest to kidnapping (Pen. Code, 207, subd. (a)) and admitted an enhancement allegation that in committing that offense he personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon, viz., a knife (Pen. Code, 12022, subd. (b)(1)). On January 8, 2007, the court imposed a prison term of six years, consisting of the five-year midterm on the substantive offense and one year on the enhancement.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Facts
On July 24, 2006, Fresno County Deputy Sheriff Robert Buenrostro, while investigating a report of a kidnapping, made contact with Maria Salazar, who told him the following.[1] Appellant and Salazar were working together in an almond orchard on the morning of July 24 when appellant became angry at Salazar, accused her of losing some methamphetamine that belonged to him and pull[ed] out a knife and threaten[ed] her with [it]. Two men tried to come to Salazars aid, at which point appellant pulled out the knife on those two gentlemen and made stabbing or slashing motions.[2]
At that point, Salazar tried to run away, but appellant gave chase, caught Salazar, grabbed her by the neck and, with the knife still in his hand, forced Salazar to walk to a vineyard approximately 1.2 miles away. The two sat in the vineyard for [a] []while and appellant threatened to kill Salazar. Eventually, appellant grabbed Salazar by the neck again and forced her to walk out of the vineyard, at which point a deputy sheriff took appellant into custody.
Procedural Background
On the day of sentencing, appellant made, and the court denied, a motion for the appointment of substitute counsel and a motion to withdraw his plea.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
*Before Harris, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Levy, J.
[1] Our factual summary is taken from Deputy Buenrostros testimony at the preliminary hearing on September 11, 2006.
[2] In addition to the charge of kidnapping, appellant was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court dismissed both assault counts pursuant to the plea agreement.
