Opinion
D073391
07-27-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLENN DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Sheila O'Connor, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. SCD270181) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. Sheila O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Glenn Davis of simple mayhem (Pen. Code, § 203) as a lesser included offense of aggravated mayhem (§ 205). The jury acquitted Davis of the remaining counts for mayhem (§ 203) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)).
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
At the sentencing hearing, the court denied Davis's request for probation and sentenced him to the middle term of four years. Davis filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel indicates she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Davis the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.)
One evening in December 2016, Davis was walking in downtown San Diego when he hit into another man in the knee with his loaded handcart. The man told Davis to "watch what you're doing," causing Davis to "slam[] his stuff on the ground," exclaim "I'll show you what I'm going to do," and approach the man wielding an umbrella. Davis started swinging the umbrella and jabbing the tip of the umbrella at the man's face. The man fell to the ground and Davis attacked, sticking his fingers in the man's eye. The man tried to pry Davis's fingers away and then felt "pressure" on his nose. Eventually, a nearby security guard arrived and instructed Davis to get off the man. The guard observed that a part of the man's nose had been bitten off. Davis testified at trial and admitted to biting off the man's nose, but claimed he did so in self-defense.
The missing portion of the man's nose was found at the scene, but subsequent efforts to surgically repair the nose were unsuccessful. At the time of trial, the man's nose was significantly deformed and additional surgeries are necessary for cosmetic reasons and to restore proper airflow through the nose. Davis also inflicted serious injury to the man's eye, requiring multiple surgeries.
Before trial, Davis asked the trial court to replace his counsel on four separate occasions pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. On each occasion, the court denied the request. Davis also requested, on the first day of trial, to represent himself, but the court denied the request as untimely.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has stated she has been unable to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel requests this court to review the record for error pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). To assist this court in its review, counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues on appeal:
1. "Did the trial court properly deny Mr. Davis'[s] request to proceed pro per?"
2. "Did the trial court properly deny Mr. Davis'[s] four requests to replace his attorney?"; and
3. "Was the evidence sufficient to show that Mr. Davis maliciously committed mayhem?"
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Davis on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.