Opinion
C086464
10-19-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERMAN ALEMAN-NAVARETE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17CR001412)
Appointed counsel for defendant German Aleman-Navarete has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
In May 2017 defendant suspected his wife was having an affair. He followed his wife to a nearby town, saw his wife's car in a restaurant parking lot, and waited there. He watched his wife leave the restaurant with another man and grew enraged. Defendant confronted his wife and the man, and the wife and the man got into the man's car to leave. Defendant grabbed a piece of metal and began striking the man's car while screaming and cursing at them. The man drove away with defendant's wife in the car. Defendant followed them. Defendant pulled in front of the other car to force it off the road, and the cars collided. The man eventually pulled over and called 911. Defendant pulled in front of the man's car and repeatedly rammed the car until it became disabled. Defendant then walked to a relative's house.
As a result of the incident, the man's car suffered large gouges, scrapes, and a broken mirror. Defendant's car had "moderate damage" to the front hood, bumper, fender, and had a broken headlight assembly. Police found a metal pry bar on the floorboard of defendant's car. Defendant voluntarily turned himself into the local police and admitted what he had done.
In July 2017 defendant was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); counts I-II), two counts of criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); counts III-IV), and one count of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); count V). It was further alleged defendant committed the crimes while subject to a suspended license. (Veh. Code, § 13202.6.)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
In October 2017 defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) The parties agreed to a maximum state prison sentence of four years. Per the parties' agreement, the trial court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations.
In December 2017 the trial court denied defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. Later that month, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of four years, as follows: three years for count I and one year (one-third the midterm of three years) for count II. (§ 245, subd. (a).) The trial court imposed a $900 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a corresponding $900 parole revocation fine, suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45). In addition, the trial court imposed an $80 court security fee (§ 1465.8) and a $60 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court awarded 308 days of custody credit.
Defendant filed a timely appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, and we denied his request to seek a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no such communication from defendant.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE, P. J. We concur: MAURO, J. RENNER, J.