Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA054001, Burt Pines, Judge.
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MOSK, J.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant and appellant Manuel Alfredo Escamilla (defendant) not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1) ), but guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault (§ 240). The jury also found defendant not guilty of vandalism. (§ 594, subd. (a).) The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years under various terms and conditions including the condition that defendant serve 60 days in county jail, with 20 days of presentence credit consisting of 14 days of actual custody credit and 6 days of conduct credit. The trial court imposed a $20 court security assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a suspended $200 probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44).
All statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
The trial court previously granted defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of driving a motor vehicle when defendant’s driving privilege was suspended or revoked. (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a).)
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
About 8:00 a.m., on November 1, 2006, Mario Topete was driving his Dodge pickup truck on the 118 Freeway near Interstate 5 when he noticed defendant in a green car in the lane to his right. Traffic was stopped. Defendant’s lane was ending. Topete did not allow defendant to pass him or merge. The car behind Topete allowed defendant to merge. Defendant’s car then moved to the driver’s side of Topete’s truck in an area defendant was not supposed to drive. Topete drove straight and defendant’s mirror struck Topete’s car, causing the mirror to break. Traffic was heavy; the cars were traveling about five miles per hour.
Defendant’s car then struck Topete’s truck again, hitting the driver’s side door and flattening Topete’s tire. The flat tire caused Topete’s truck to stop. Defendant continued about 20 to 25 feet in front of Topete’s truck. Defendant then placed his car in reverse and crashed into the front of Topete’s truck. The hood of Topete’s truck opened up. Topete later had to tie down the hood to drive away. After striking Topete’s car, defendant pulled up about 10 feet and stopped. Defendant got out of his car and told Topete that if he had a gun, he would have killed Topete. Topete paid about $3,000 to repair the damage to his truck.
Pablo Quijada witnessed the incident. Quijada testified that he saw two cars “fighting” for the same lane. Defendant tried to merge into Topete’s lane, but Topete would not let him. Topete “taunt[ed]” defendant—braking, speeding, braking, speeding. Defendant tried to move in front of Topete and Topete sped up and “swiped” the defendant’s car, knocking off the mirror. After being “swiped, ” defendant moved to the left then “smashed” into Topete’s driver’s side door, damaging the door and flattening the tire.
Quijada testified that Topete’s truck stalled in its lane. Defendant drove forward about 15 feet before placing his car in reverse and hitting the front of Topete’s truck. Defendant pulled forward and again backed into Topete’s truck. Defendant pulled to the shoulder, got out of his car and said to Quijada, “Did you see it was his fault?” Defendant asked Quijada to call the police. Quijada was with Topete when defendant approached Topete. Quijada did not hear defendant say anything about a gun.
Defendant told California Highway Patrol Officer Steve Allen that he became upset when he tried to merge and Topete would not let him. Defendant stated that he slowed down and tried to pass Topete on the left, but Topete also moved to the left. Topete’s truck made contact with defendant’s car, breaking off the mirror. The truck subsequently struck defendant’s car, again causing defendant to be upset. Defendant said to Officer Allen that he figured if the man in the truck wanted to crash, then he also would crash. Defendant explained that he did not have to worry about “it” because he had full coverage insurance. Defendant then turned “really hard” and contacted the left side of the truck. After the truck stopped, defendant drove his car in front of the truck. Defendant put his car in reverse with the intention of blocking the truck from leaving, but he hit the truck once.
Defendant testified that as he tried to merge, Topete’s truck hit his car. Defendant then tried to get Topete to pull over to exchange information as he understood the law required. Topete’s truck subsequently grazed the side of defendant’s car and then drove into the front of defendant’s car. Defendant became frightened of Topete when Topete’s truck hit his car again. In an effort to avoid oncoming traffic, defendant jerked his steering wheel to the right and hit Topete’s truck. Defendant wanted to block in Topete so Topete could not leave the scene. Defendant put his car in reverse, accidentally striking Topete’s truck when he miscalculated his speed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 26, 2007, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not submit a brief or letter. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J., ARMSTRONG, J.