Opinion
B295681
03-03-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIP GRANT, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA460838) THE COURT:
On September 6, 2017, defendant and appellant Kip Grant stabbed his neighbor multiple times with a knife attached to a utility tool during an altercation at a Metro station. Defendant's neighbor suffered wounds to his back, abdomen, arm, shoulder, and neck, and was hospitalized for approximately two weeks.
In a single-count information filed on August 24, 2018, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). It was also alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a); the GBI enhancement).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
After trial, the jury found defendant guilty of the assault with a deadly weapon count and also found the GBI enhancement to be true. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of six years, comprised of the midterm of three years on the assault with a deadly weapon count and a consecutive three years for the GBI enhancement. The court also imposed a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4). The court imposed and stayed a $400 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45).
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in connection with this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which no arguable issues were raised. On November 12, 2019, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds of appeal, contentions, or argument for us to consider. We received a letter dated November 25, 2019, which we treated as a request for appointment of new counsel. On December 3, 2019, we denied the request for appointment of new counsel and advised defendant that his supplemental brief was due within 30 days. Defendant did not file a timely supplemental brief.
On January 27, 2020, we denied defendant permission to file a late supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record on appeal and are satisfied that defendant's appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
For the sake of completeness, we have also considered contentions contained in a document that we received on December 13, 2019, from defendant titled, "Notification of Substantial Misrepresentation of Facts Regarding the Court Reporter's Minute Order." We find no arguable basis for reversal.
Defendant first contends that the minute order in the record erroneously reflects that he waived time for trial on September 14, 2018. The record before us does not contain a reporter's transcript of the hearing on September 14, 2018, to corroborate or refute defendant's representation. However, even if we were to assume that defendant did not waive time and that his right to a speedy trial was violated, defendant does not argue—nor is it apparent—that any prejudice resulted from the purported delay. (See People v. Giron-Chamul (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 932, 956; People v. Villanueva (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 411, 424, fn. 13 ["a defendant who first seeks relief for a speedy trial violation after judgment . . . must establish prejudice"].)
Defendant also contends that he was not present in court at a bail review hearing on October 9, 2018, even though the minute order states that he was. The reporter's transcript for October 9, 2018, is not before us. However, the trial court's statements in the reporter's transcript from a hearing two days later, on October 11, 2018, strongly suggest that defendant appeared in court on October 9, 2018. And, even if he did not appear, there is no indication that he suffered any prejudice: Another bail review hearing was held, with defendant present, on October 19, 2018.
Finally, "[t]o the extent [defendant's] contentions allege ineffective assistance of counsel, this claim cannot be resolved on the present record." (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126 (Kelly), citing People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 267.)
Defendant has, by virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 109-110.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. /s/_________
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J. /s/_________
CHAVEZ, J. /s/_________
HOFFSTADT, J.