Opinion
E069084
05-08-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.Nos. INF1403282 & INF1501059) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Otis Sterling III, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Matthew Lopez pled guilty in case No. INF1403282 and was placed on probation. A petition to revoke his probation was filed concurrently with an information containing charges against him in case No. INF1501059. A trial court subsequently found defendant in violation of his terms and revoked his probation, and a jury found him guilty in case No. INF1501059. The court sentenced him in both cases on the same day and imposed a term of five years in state prison in case No. INF1501059 and a consecutive three years in case No. INF1403282.
Defendant filed notices of appeal in both cases. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2014, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant in case No. INF1403282 (hereinafter, the first case) with inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a), count 1), criminal threats (§ 422, count 2), resisting an officer (§ 69, counts 3-5), misdemeanor child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (b), count 6), and disorderly conduct (§ 647, count 7).
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
On February 9, 2015, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to counts 1, and 3-5. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court placed him on probation, with mental health court terms. The court dismissed the remaining counts.
On June 26, 2015, a felony complaint was filed in case No. INF1501059 concurrently with a petition to revoke probation in the first case, charging defendant with inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant with a prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1), count 1) and resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a), counts 2-4).
On September 15, 2015, in case No. INF1501059 (hereinafter, the second case), the court granted defense counsel's request to have a doctor examine defendant to determine his mental competency.
On October 14, 2015, defense counsel declared a doubt as to defendant's competency and asked that the proceedings be suspended. The court granted the request and suspended the proceedings. It also appointed another doctor to examine defendant.
On December 2, 2015, defense counsel submitted on the doctor's finding that defendant was not competent to stand trial. The court agreed and ordered that the proceedings remain suspended. The court referred defendant to a healthcare restoration competency program.
On January 4, 2016, the court granted a Marsden motion and appointed another attorney for defendant.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
On August 11, 2016, the court found defendant mentally competent and reinstated the proceedings.
On September 29, 2016, upon agreement of the parties, the court held a violation of probation hearing on the first case concurrently with the preliminary hearing on the second case. The court found there was sufficient evidence to hold defendant to answer in the second case. It also found that defendant violated his probation terms in the first case and revoked his probation.
On October 12, 2016, an information was filed in the second case, charging defendant with inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant with a prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(1), count 1), resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a), counts 2-4), and the added charge of false imprisonment (§ 236, count 5).
On June 30, 2017, a jury found defendant guilty of counts 1, 2, and 5, but it acquitted him of counts 3 and 4.
The court sentenced defendant in both cases on August 4, 2017. In the second case, the court imposed five years in state prison on count 1 and the midterm of two years on count 5, which it stayed under section 654. The court imposed a concurrent term of one year on count 2. As to the first case, the court imposed consecutive terms of one year on count 1 and eight months each on counts 3, 4, and 5. The total aggregate sentence was eight years. The court also awarded custody credits and imposed specified fines and fees.
On January 25, 2018, appellate counsel submitted a letter to the trial court seeking correction of the minute order and abstract of judgment in the first case, since they reflected the wrong amount for the restitution fine. The court corrected the errors. --------
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Case No. INF1403282
Defendant admitted that, on December 2, 2014, he willfully and unlawfully inflicted a corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon Jane Doe, in violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a).
Defendant further admitted that on December 4, 2014, he willfully and unlawfully attempted by means of threat and violence to deter three police officers from performing their duties.
Case No. INF1501059
The victim was living with her former boyfriend, defendant, in 2015. On June 24, 2015, defendant accused her of cheating on him, and they had a heated argument. The victim left the apartment because she could not be around him anymore. She came back later to get her laptop. At that time, defendant grabbed her phone and keys and threw them across the room. He pushed her onto the bed and put his knees and legs on her arms to pin her down so she could not move. He started strangling her. When he stopped and got off, she was crying, and he kicked her in the lower back. He then got back on top of her and started strangling her again. He repeated this cycle three times. After the third time he got off of her, the victim grabbed her phone and called 911 when his back was facing her. Three police officers responded to the call and located defendant walking back and forth in front of the apartment. One of the officers asked to search him for weapons, but he refused. Defendant started walking backward, and the officer commanded him several times to turn around and put his hands behind his back. Defendant was clenching his fists as if he was going to fight. The officers tried to restrain him, but defendant fought them and pushed them away. One of the officers deployed a taser gun twice, but it had no effect. The third time the officer deployed the taser gun, it was effective, and they detained him.
One of the officers interviewed the victim at the scene. He observed injuries to her face and cheeks and redness and swelling in the chest and throat area. He took photographs, which were shown to the jury.
At trial, defendant's prior girlfriend testified that, on December 2, 2014, she and defendant had an altercation. They were separating, and defendant said he was going to kill her. He put on gloves and started to punch her in the face. She fell to the ground, and he continued to punch and kick her. Her teenage son intervened, and defendant left.
ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of a traumatic condition for the section 273.5 conviction in the second case; (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the felony false imprisonment conviction in the second case; and (3) whether the sentences of two of the three violations of resisting an officer in the first case should be stayed under section 654. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. FIELDS
J.