Filed 6/25/26 P. v. Zamudio CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H053910
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 21CR007015)
v.
EDGAR FERNANDO ZAMUDIO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Edgar Fernando Zamudio appeals from a final judgment in a criminal
action. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no
issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf,
and he has not done so.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal.
Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide “a brief
description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the
defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (Id. at p. 110.)
I. WENDE/KELLY REVIEW
Defendant was initially charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon
(Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of misdemeanor child endangerment (Pen.
Code, § 273a, subd. (b)). According to the probation report, the charges stemmed from a
2021 incident in which defendant drove his car into a car being driven by his daughter’s
mother. In 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to a single count of assault by means
likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) and was placed on
probation for a period of three years.1
In 2023, defendant was arrested on domestic violence and child endangerment
charges. He admitted violating probation and was sentenced to three years in prison.
Execution of that sentence was suspended and probation was extended until November
23, 2025.
On November 5, 2025, the probation officer alleged defendant had violated
probation by contacting his daughter’s mother on October 27 and November 1. The
woman provided the probation officer with a screenshot of an electronic message calling
her a “stupiD CUNT,” as well as an “aggressive and threatening” voicemail message in
which a man whose voice was “consistent with” defendant’s “cussed at her multiple
times and again called her a derogatory name.” Defendant admitted the violation on
November 6, 2025. The trial court terminated probation on December 4, 2025 and
ordered execution of the three-year prison sentence. Defendant was awarded 269 days of
presentence custody credit, representing 135 actual days and 134 days of conduct credit.
We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue.
II. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed
1
We note that the two-year probation maximum set forth in Penal Code
section 1203.1, subdivision (a) does not apply to “an offense that includes specific
probation lengths within its provisions.” (Pen. Code, § 1203.1, subd. (l)(1).) “A
minimum period of probation of 36 months” applies where “the victim is a person
defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code,” including the probationer’s child or another
parent of the child. (Pen. Code, § 1203.097, subd. (a).)
2
____________________________________
Grover, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________
Lie, J.
____________________________
Wilson, J.
H053910
The People v. Zamudio
