From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gonzales

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Tehama
Oct 30, 2007
No. C055512 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2007)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL LEE GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant. C055512 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Tehama October 30, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. NCR69900

SCOTLAND , P.J.

Defendant Daniel Lee Gonzales, a maintenance man at a motor home park, stabbed David McBride, a resident at the park, with a knife in an unprovoked assault. Defendant then assaulted other victims, threatened to stab others, and fled from the scene.

Pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to three counts of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and two counts of making criminal threats. In connection with one of the assault offenses, defendant admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury. He entered his pleas and admission in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations (with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 as to one of the counts for purposes of restitution only) and a stipulated prison sentence of 10 years four months--the upper term of four years for one assault conviction plus a three-year enhancement for infliction of great bodily injury and consecutive one-third the middle terms on the remaining counts. The court sentenced him accordingly.

Defendant appeals. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SIMS , J. MORRISON , J.


Summaries of

People v. Gonzales

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Tehama
Oct 30, 2007
No. C055512 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2007)
Case details for

People v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL LEE GONZALES, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Tehama

Date published: Oct 30, 2007

Citations

No. C055512 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2007)