Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. VA109645 Margaret Miller Bernal, Judge.
Roger Allen Bruce II, in pro. per.; and Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
JACKSON, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Roger Allen Bruce II appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction after a jury trial for assault with a deadly weapon. No meritorious issues have been identified following a review of the record by defendant’s appointed counsel and our own independent review of the record and analysis of the multiple contentions presented by defendant in a handwritten supplemental brief. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by information on with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), with special allegations he had suffered one prior violent or serious felony (robbery) within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The information further alleged defendant had previously served a separate prison term for a felony (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
According to the trial evidence, around 1:30 a.m. on February 16, 2009, defendant and his friends became embroiled in a physical altercation with Nicholas Tilton (Tilton) and Brandon Tate (Tate) outside a bar in the City of Lakewood. At one point, defendant put a knife to Tilton’s neck. Other bar patrons stopped the fight, and Tilton and Tate headed for their car. Defendant and his friends followed and another fight erupted. The bar manager, Lawrence Hamm (Hamm), intervened by grabbing defendant around the neck and pulling him off Tilton. Defendant stabbed Hamm with the knife.
Defendant did not testify in his defense. His friends, Christopher Donald White and Michael Carver, testified they were with defendant that morning and Tilton and Tate were the aggressors, one of whom displayed a gun during the fight.
The jury convicted defendant of aggravated assault on Hamm (count 2), but acquitted him of committing the same offense on Tilton (count 1). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant waived his rights to trial and admitted the prior conviction allegations.
The trial court heard and denied defendant’s Romero motion (People v. SuperiorCourt (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-530). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 11 years, consisting of six years (the three-year middle term doubled under the Three Strikes law) for aggravated assault, and five years for the section 667, subdivision (a)(1), enhancement. The court dismissed the one year section 667.5, subdivision (b), enhancement in the furtherance of justice. Defendant received presentence custody credit of 164 days (110 actual days and 54 days of conduct credit). The court ordered defendant to pay a $30 security assessment and a $200 restitution fine. A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to section 1202.45.
Defendant originally received presentence custody credit of 126 days (110 actual days and 16 days of conduct credit). However, in response to defendant’s ex parte motion, the trial court corrected the award of presentence custody credit to 164 days by an amended abstract of judgment.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On July 23, 2010, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On July 30, 2010, we received a handwritten supplemental brief in which defendant challenged his conviction and sentence on a number of grounds. Although none of defendant’s claims presents an arguable issue, pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120-121, we identify defendant’s contentions and explain the reasons they fail.
Claim of Insufficient Evidence
The testimony of Hamm that defendant attacked him with a knife was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) Determining witness credibility is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) Nothing in the record suggests that Hamm’s testimony was inherently improbable or physically impossible. (See People v. Elwood (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1365, 1372.)
Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Defendant also argues his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Apart from merely asserting his counsel “did not do a good job, ” defendant specifically asserts counsel improperly failed to call certain defense witnesses, and “did not care about me or this case.” However, the record on appeal is simply insufficient to overcome the presumption defense counsel performed effectively, and his actions were a matter of sound trial strategy. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686, 689-690 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674]; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 261.)
For example, one of defendant’s claims is Tate was never asked about having previously identified Tilton as the aggressor. However, defendant was acquitted of committing aggravated assault against Tilton.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J. ZELON, J.