Opinion
D075938
12-12-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOMAS GRAJEDA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
Jill M. Klein, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FVA025452) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Stephan G. Saleson, Judge. Affirmed. Jill M. Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is the fifth appeal from a conviction for attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664 and 187, subd. (a)) with the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)), as well as carrying a loaded firearm in public and a criminal street gang enhancement. The court found Grajeda had suffered three strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The facts and procedural background are set forth in Grajeda IV. We will not repeat them here.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
We granted Grajeda's request to take judicial notice of the previous appeals in this case. We take judicial notice of the following records: People v. Grajeda (2011) D058090 (Grajeda I); People v. Grajeda (2012) D060725 (Grajeda II); People v. Grajeda (2014) D064452 (Grajeda III); and People v. Grajeda (2017) D073096 (Grajeda IV). --------
By the time of the Grajeda IV appeal, the case had been through several resentencing hearings and a habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court. The gang enhancement had been dismissed as well as the firearm count. Grajeda had been sentenced to 50 years to life for the offenses and the firearm enhancements. The trial court in the 2017 resentencing conducted the hearing without providing counsel for Grajeda. In Grajeda IV, we vacated the sentence and remanded with directions to appoint counsel for Grajeda, correct the custody credits, exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement and amend the abstract of judgment.
On remand, the trial court followed our directions and appointed counsel, corrected the custody credits and the abstract of judgment. The court declined to strike the firearm enhancement. Grajeda was again sentenced to 50 years-to-life. The court also ordered a restitution fine of $280 without objection.
Grajeda filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)) indicating 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 Grajeda the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has asked this court to review the record for error as required by Wende. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues she considered in evaluating the merits of this appeal:
1) Did the court abuse its discretion in declining to strike or modify the firearm enhancement;
2) Does the abstract of judgment reflect the correct custody credits; and
3) Was the trial court required to hold a hearing on Grajeda's ability to pay before imposing a restitution fine?
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Grajeda on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. DATO, J.