P. v. Garcia
Filed 9/6/12 P. v. Garcia CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
JULIO CESAR GARCIA,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim. No.
B237746
(Super. Ct. No.
2011005126)
(Ventura
County)
Julio Cesar Garcia
appeals from a conviction after jury trial of one count each of
threats (§ 422) and battery (§
243, subd. (e)(1)). The felony
information alleged that he committed these offenses while released on bail in
two other pending cases (Nos. 2010020113 and 2010032933). (§ 12022.1, subd. (b).) After appellant waived jury, the trial court
found the on-bail allegations to be true.
The trial court sentenced
appellant to the middle term of three years on the robbery count. The court granted appellant's motion to
reduce the remaining two counts to misdemeanors, and imposed a one-year jail
sentence on each count, to run concurrently with the prison sentence, plus two
years for the on-bail enhancements. In
the other two cases, appellant pled guilty to one count of second degree
burglary of a motor vehicle (§ 459) and one count of brandishing a weapon (§
417). The trial court sentenced him to
eight months (one-third the middle term) on each count, to run consecutively to
the five years imposed in the present case, for a total sentence of six years
four months.
The trial court imposed
the minimum statutory restitution fines in each case (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b),
1202.45), and awarded appellant a total of 327 days custody credit, consisting
of 283 actual custody credit and 44 days good conduct credit. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal
from the judgment in the present case.
On February 3, 2011, Maria Navarette and her daughter
Beatrice Valencia encountered appellant, a former boyfriend of Navarette, while
they were walking through an alley on the way to a store to buy soda. Appellant asked Valencia
if he could speak privately with her mother.
After Valencia
left the alley, appellant asked Navarette for money. Navarette denied having any money. Appellant, a Colonia Chiques gang member,
pulled out a knife and threatened to "break" or "burn" her
or to kill her. When Navarette continued
to refuse to give him money, appellant knocked her down and took $500 in cash
plus her cell phone. Navarette demanded
her money back. When appellant refused
to return it, she scratched him in the face.
During the altercation, Navarette sustained a knee abrasion.
At some point, Navarette
started screaming and called out to her daughter, who ran into the alley. Valencia
saw appellant apparently punching her mother, who was on the ground with
appellant on top of her. As Valencia
approached, appellant helped Navarette back to her feet. Appellant and Navarette continued to argue
over the money, which appellant refused to return. Appellant told them that if they called the
police, "[y]ou know what's gonna happen." He said he would "come back and
kill" Navarette or her children. Valencia
thought this was a legitimate threat.
Appellant left before the police arrived.
When Officer Roberto
Valenzuela arrived at the scene, he found Navarette crying and very distraught,
with an abrasion on her knee. She did
not show any signs of being under the influence of alcohol. After Navarette and Valencia
gave recorded statements, they assisted the officers in trying to locate
appellant's home, but they were unable to find it.
Officer Valenzuela
interviewed appellant several days later, on February 9, 2011.
During the interview, appellant "spontaneously" admitted he
had returned the cell phone to Navarette and said that Navarette "was
going to drop the charges anyways . . . ."
Navarette and Valencia
subsequently recanted their stories to the district attorney. At trial, they denied much of what they had
earlier told the police. Navarette
testified that she had been drinking all afternoon with a friend and had gone
home to look for money to buy more wine.
She stated she had no money on her at all because she had spent her
entire monthly income on rent and groceries.
Navarette testified that
when she encountered appellant in the alley, she asked him for money. When he refused to give her any, she
threatened to call the police and accuse him of assault. Navarette stated she fell down because she
had been drinking and that she lost her balance when she tried to scratch
appellant's face. She said all appellant
did was help her up. Navarette testified
she instructed her daughter to call the police only because she was angry
appellant would not give her any money and because he was controlling her
life.
Navarette also denied
that appellant had a knife. She said she
lied about appellant taking money and her cell phone. She claimed she misplaced the cell phone and
found it several days later on the floor in her room.
Valencia testified that
she also lied to the officers about what had occurred. She said that when she returned to the alley
she could not see anything clearly because of her poor eyesight. Valencia testified that at the time of her
initial interview, she believed her mother was telling the truth and that, as a
result, she wanted to get appellant arrested.
Valencia did state that her mother is "not much of a drinker"
and that the last time she saw her mother drink alcohol was in 2000.
The trial court admitted
the women's earlier recorded interviews as evidence. The court clerk played the CD recordings for
the jurors and also provided them with transcripts.
We appointed
appeal. After examining the record,
counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we
independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On May 15, 2012, we
advised appellant in writing that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues he
wished to raise on appeal. Appellant did not respond.
Having examined the
entire record, we are satisfied that appointed counsel has fully complied with
her responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Charles
W. Campbell, Judge
Superior
Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Linda L. Currey, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
