Opinion
B284943
06-21-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTURO ACEVEDO, Defendant and Appellant.
Katherine E. Hardie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT:*
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 21, 2018, be modified as follows:
At page 3, footnote 2, delete the entire text and replace with the following:
"We subsequently granted appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a response. No timely response was received. After we filed the original opinion, appellant filed a letter brief raising four issues. After reviewing appellant's belated response, we conclude reversal of the judgment is not warranted. The record does not suggest any prejudicial juror misconduct; there was substantial evidence in the record to support the conviction; and appellant has not shown that trial counsel's decisions were not based on sound tactical reasons. With respect to appellant's ineffective assistance claims, we note that appellant is not precluded from raising those claims in a habeas petition after developing a fuller record."
The modification does not change the judgment. /s/_________
*WILLHITE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
MANELLA, J. /s/_________
COLLINS, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA085680) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hilleri G. Merritt, Judge. Affirmed. Katherine E. Hardie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
____________________
Appellant Arturo Acevedo was charged with assault with a deadly weapon on Moises Galvez (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that appellant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior convictions resulting in prison sentences (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated.
At trial, the victim testified that appellant, who was holding a six-inch knife, threatened, "I'm going to kill you." After the victim fled, appellant chased after him until the victim entered his companion's van and left the area. Two percipient witnesses testified that they observed appellant chasing the victim, but did not see a knife in appellant's hand. The jury convicted appellant of criminal threats, but hung (10-2 in favor of guilt) on the assault charge. The prosecution declined to refile the assault charge, and the count was dismissed. In a bifurcated proceeding, appellant admitted the prior conviction allegations.
Appellant filed a motion to strike his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, which was denied. The trial court sentenced appellant to nine years in state prison, consisting of the middle term of two years, doubled for the strike, plus a five-year enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a).
Appellant timely appealed. After examining the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but asking this court to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On March 7, 2018, this court sent a letter advising appellant he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter raising any contention or argument which he wished this court to consider. No response was received.
We subsequently granted defendant's motion for an extension of time to file a response. No response was received. --------
This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and is satisfied appellant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we affirm.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MANELLA, J. We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P. J. COLLINS, J.