From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jimenez

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 29, 2021
F080200 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2021)

Opinion

F080200

01-29-2021

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS MANUEL JIMENEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. F18905498)

OPINION

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alvin M. Harrell III, Judge. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Before Peña, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Jesus Manuel Jimenez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On about February 23, 2012, defendant raped a 15-year-old girl.

On August 24, 2018, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with rape of a child 14 years or older (Pen. Code, § 264, subd. (c)(2); count 1) and sexual penetration by force (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(c); count 2). The information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior felony "strike" conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and a prior serious felony within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a).

All statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------

On October 30, 2018, a jury declared it was unable to reach a verdict on either count. The trial court declared a mistrial.

On July 25, 2019, the district attorney filed a first amended information, adding a third count: false imprisonment by violence (§ 236; count 3).

The same day, defendant pled no contest to count 3 and admitted the prior strike conviction.

On September 13, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison (eight months, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law). The court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the nine-year sentence imposed in another case.

On October 30, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Jimenez

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Jan 29, 2021
F080200 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2021)
Case details for

People v. Jimenez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS MANUEL JIMENEZ, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Jan 29, 2021

Citations

F080200 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2021)