Opinion
F075269
05-21-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CONTRERAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Tyrone A. Sandoval, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF48763)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge. Tyrone A. Sandoval, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen J., and Ellison, J.†
-ooOoo-
A jury convicted appellant Juan Contreras of possession of a weapon while confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding, Contreras admitted that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On the morning of July 24, 2015, Correctional Officers Verennice Fonseca and Jesse Sesma and Correctional Sergeant Michael Bullock conducted random searches at the Sierra Conservation Center in Tuolumne County. At approximately 9:10 a.m., Sesma saw Contreras looking at him with a mirror that protruded out of the window of the door to Dorm 71. Sesma entered Dorm 71 with the other officers but did not immediately see Contreras. However, after hearing a toilet flush, Sesma saw Contreras exit the restroom and walk towards him. Sesma ordered Contreras to stop and turn around so that the officer could conduct a clothed search of him. During the search, Sesma noticed that the back part of Contreras's right hand, wrist and forearm were wet. Sesma asked Contreras, who was shaking, why his hand was wet, but he did not respond. Sesma searched the dorm's restroom and in the first toilet found an inmate-manufactured weapon that consisted of a piece of plastic with a sharpened point. Water was splashed on the toilet's seat and around its base.
Bullock testified that when he entered the dorm, he saw Contreras walk into the restroom and after five seconds, during which he heard the toilet flush, Contreras walked back out.
On December 1, 2015, the Tuolumne County District Attorney filed a complaint charging Contreras with possession of a weapon while confined in a penal institution and with having a prior conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law.
On March 30, 2016, following a preliminary hearing, the court deemed the complaint to be an information.
On January 5, 2017, the jury rendered its verdict and Contreras admitted the allegation that he had a prior strike conviction.
On February 21, 2017, the court sentenced Contreras to a six-year prison term, the middle term of three years doubled to six years because of Contreras's strike conviction.
On March 3, 2017, Contreras filed a timely appeal.
Contreras's appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) However, in a letter filed on December 19, 2017, Contreras cites several circumstances to contend, in essence, that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. There is no merit to this contention.
For example, Contreras contends that prosecution witnesses admitted they did not see Contreras in possession of the weapon or which toilet he flushed and that they did not know when the last search of the dorm or restroom occurred.
Contreras also requests to have his appellate counsel removed and another attorney appointed. His request is denied. --------
" ' "When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—i.e., evidence that is credible and of solid value—from which a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." ' [Citations.] When undertaking such review, our opinion that the evidence could reasonably be reconciled with a finding of innocence or a lesser degree of crime does not warrant a reversal of the judgment." (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 848-849.)
To show a violation of section 4502, subdivision (a): (1) the prosecution had to prove Contreras was confined in a penal institution; (2) Contreras possessed, or carried on his person, a sharp instrument; (3) Contreras knew he possessed or carried on his person a sharp instrument; and (4) he knew that the instrument could be used for purposes of offense and defense. (CALCRIM No. 2745.)
It was undisputed at trial that Contreras was confined in a penal institution when the piece of plastic with a sharpened tip was found in the toilet, that the plastic item was a sharp instrument within the meaning of section 4502, and that it could be used for purposes of offense and defense. Further, the evidence at trial established that after seeing the officers approaching his dorm, Contreras immediately ran to the dorm's restroom where the piece of plastic was found in one of the toilets. Seconds later, as he walked away from the restroom, the officers detained Contreras and found that the back of his right hand, wrist and forearm were wet. Water was also found splashed on the seat and base of the toilet where the officers found the piece of plastic. The jury could reasonably have found from these circumstances that Contreras knowingly had a sharp instrument in his possession and that upon seeing the officers, he ran to the restroom and attempted, unsuccessfully, to flush it down the toilet. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Contreras's conviction for possession of a weapon in a penal institution in violation of section 4502, subdivision (a).
Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
† Retired judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.