Filed 9/10/26 P. v. Hernandez CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, B350012, B350016
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. Nos.
v. 24CMCF00751,
24CMCF00167)
MARTIN CAMPOS
HERNANDEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
On October 15, 2023, appellant and defendant Martin
Campos Hernandez (defendant) was arrested at the home of his
brother, Jose A.1 Earlier that day, defendant spray-painted the
1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4), we
initially refer to the victim in this case by first name and last
initial, and thereafter by first name only. No disrespect is
intended.
“front of the home, [including] the doors and the wall” with
Spanish writing to the effect that Jose “was . . . a bad person[.]”
The arresting officers searched defendant, found a
methamphetamine pipe, and took him to the hospital. The
incident caused $1,500 in damages.
At about 3:00 a.m. on the next day, defendant returned to
Jose’s home. Jose saw defendant spray-painting the family’s two
cars, causing $400 in damages. Defendant was again arrested.
On April 17, 2024, defendant entered an industrial building
and pointed a semiautomatic handgun at an employee. The
employee fled and called the police. Defendant did not respond to
multiple police commands to exit the building. A police dog was
sent in to search for him. The dog put its head underneath a tarp
and found defendant hiding there. Defendant shot and injured
the dog. He was then arrested.
Defendant was charged with one count of assault with a
semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)),2 one count of
assaulting and causing serious injury to a police animal (§ 600,
subd. (a)), one count of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), and
one count of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)). The
prosecution also alleged that defendant personally used a firearm
when committing both assault offenses (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)),
along with multiple aggravating factors (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 4.421, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2)).
On March 17, 2025, defendant filed a petition for mental
health diversion (§ 1001.36), citing a recent diagnosis for
substance-induced psychotic disorder. The prosecution opposed
the petition. The trial court denied the petition, citing “serious
2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
public safety concerns” based on “the facts of [the] case” as
alleged.
On October 16, 2025, defendant pled no contest to assault
with a semiautomatic firearm, assaulting a police animal causing
serious injury, and felony vandalism. He admitted the firearm
use allegation as to the assault with a semiautomatic firearm.
He also stipulated to aggravating factors on both assault charges.
The trial court accepted defendant’s plea. The trial court
sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of nine years.
Defendant timely appealed.3 The trial court issued
certificates of probable cause.
Defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and
asked this court to independently review the record to determine
whether any arguable issues exist.
On June 9, 2026, we informed defendant by letter that he
had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds for
appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. To date, we
have received no response from defendant.
We have independently examined the entire record on
appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has
fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the
Wende procedure and our independent review of the record,
received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment
entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)
3 On April 9, 2026, we granted defendant’s motion to
consolidate his appeals in the assault (B350012) and vandalism
(B350016) cases.
3
528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–
110.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
——————————————————————————————
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J. RICHARDSON, J. GOORVITCH, J.
4
