Opinion
F075262
03-09-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERMAN ALEJANDRO ESQUER, Defendant and Appellant.
Cynthia L. Barnes, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF47108)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Judge. Cynthia L. Barnes, 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., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant German Alejandro Esquer asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On February 20, 2015, Correctional Officers Weiland and Hough were conducting a security check of a bunk area in a penal institution. As they entered, they noticed a group of four inmates standing together between bunk areas. When the officers began to approach, defendant walked away from the group. Officer Weiland ordered him to stop for a clothed body search. Officer Hough ordered the remaining three inmates to go to the dayroom. Officer Hough searched the area where the group had been standing and found a sharpened blue plastic toothbrush handle lying under a bunk. Meanwhile, Officer Weiland searched defendant and discovered a piece of sandpaper with blue plastic flakes in his hand. Officer Hough showed the sharpened instrument to Officer Weiland.
On April 28, 2016, defendant filed a Pitchess motion, claiming he had been in possession of a blue domino, which he was sanding, and Officer Weiland failed to report finding the blue domino on him. Defendant's motion requested that the trial court review personnel records of Officers Weiland and Hough. On May 20, 2016, the trial court granted the motion in part, ordering that the prison produce the personnel records of Officer Weiland to determine whether there were any complaints that he had made false reports.
Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). --------
On May 27, 2016, the trial court held an in camera hearing on the Pitchess motion. The personnel records contained no complaints made against Officer Weiland within the five years prior to the incident. Afterward, the court stated it had conducted an in camera hearing on the personnel records of Officer Weiland and had found nothing to disclose.
On October 24, 2016, defendant pled guilty to possessing a sharp instrument while confined in a penal institution (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)) and admitted having suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
On January 4, 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law.
On March 3, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.