P. v. Gaston

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 5/21/13  P. v. Gaston 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Butte)

----

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   REGINALD DEWAYNE GASTON, JR.,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C072430   (Super. Ct. No. CM037051)

 

 

 

 

Appointed counsel for defendant Reginald Dewayne Gaston, Jr., asked
this court to review the record to determine whether there are any href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">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

            Because the matter was resolved by
plea, the background facts are taken from the probation officer’s report.  Defendant and the victim were former
cohabitants.  In August 2012, the
victim contacted defendant regarding his visitation of their two older
children, ages four and five.  Pursuant
to defendant’s instructions, the victim brought the children to defendant’s
workplace.  Rather than receiving the
children, however, defendant began driving to his parents’ residence in Palermo.  The
victim, with the children, followed defendant in her own car. 

            The victim realized she did not have
enough gasoline for the trip to Palermo.  Both
parties pulled over and the victim told the children to get into defendant’s
car.  Believing that defendant would
argue with her about a Facebook photograph, the victim drove away after the
children left her car and before they entered defendant’s car.  When the victim looked in her rearview
mirror, however, she saw that defendant was pursuing her and the children were
screaming on the side of the road. 

            The victim returned to the children
and told them to get in her car.  But
defendant pushed the victim to the ground and called her a “whore.”  Defendant pulled off some of the victim’s
clothes, saying that because she was a whore everyone should see her body.  She tried to escape but he would not release
her.  Defendant pulled her jean shorts
and underwear down to her mid-thigh, and he removed her tube top and bathing
suit, exposing her breasts.  He also
tried to remove her dentures so no one would “like” her.  The children witnessed the altercation. 

            Defendant eventually released the
victim after she repeatedly asked him to let her go.  Defendant put one child in the victim’s car
and said to the child, “just so you know I am only letting you go with (the
victim) because (the victim) is going to call the police and daddy is going to
jail tonight because (the victim) is a whore.” 
The victim tried to leave the scene but defendant stopped her by
repeatedly pulling the emergency brake. 
Eventually defendant allowed the victim to leave. 

            The victim returned to her residence
and contacted law enforcement.  Officers
observed abrasions on the victim’s arms and back and additional bruising on her
left leg. 

            Defendant pleaded guilty to href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">false imprisonment by violence (Pen.
Code,href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"
title="">[1] § 236 -- count 1), felony child abuse
(§ 273a, subd. (a) -- count 2), and misdemeanor corporal injury to a
child’s parent (§ 273.5, subd. (a) -- count 3).  The trial court suspended imposition of
sentence and placed defendant on probation for four years on the condition,
among others, that he serve 90 days in jail with credit for time served (48
days).  On counts 1 and 2, the trial
court ordered defendant to pay a $760 fine (§ 672) including penalty
assessments.  The trial court also
ordered defendant to pay a $300 battered women’s shelter fee (§ 1203.097,
subd. (a)(11)(A)), a $400 domestic violence program fee (§ 1203.097,
former subd. (a)(5)), a $250 domestic violence fee (§ 1463.27, subd. (a)),
a $1,000 child abuse prevention fine (§ 294, subd. (a)), a $240
restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $240 restitution fine suspended unless
probation is revoked (§ 1202.44), a $120 court operations fee
(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $90 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code,
§ 70373), a $164 per month probation supervision fee, a $736 presentence
report fee, and a $420 public defender fee unless defendant requests a hearing
on the issue. 

II

            Appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">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.

 

 

 

                                                                                                           MAURO                      , J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

                   
NICHOLSON                    ,
Acting P. J.

 

 

                    DUARTE                           , J.