Opinion
C084766
02-23-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY JAMES GUARINO, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 17CR000045)
Appointed counsel for defendant Timothy James Guarino filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts are taken from the police report, which is summarized in the probation report. As part of his plea agreement, defendant agreed the trial court could consider the police report as proof of the factual basis for his guilty plea.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On January 15, 2017, the victim found text messages on defendant's phone about him getting back together with his ex-wife. When she confronted defendant about the messages, he held her down and strangled her.
When the police arrived at the victim's residence following a report of a disturbance, blood was dripping down defendant's face. He had scratches on his eye, face, and mouth. He also had scratches on his neck and chest, and was bleeding from a bite mark near his nipple. Defendant offered several explanations for his injuries, including that his dog had scratched him, and that he had engaged in rough sex with the victim.
When an officer spoke to the victim's nine-year-old daughter, she was crying and appeared terrified. She told the officer that she saw defendant strangle her mother.
The victim's neck was red and her voice was hoarse. She told the officers that defendant went crazy after she confronted him about the text messages. She explained that defendant strangled her, and that he released his grip and walked away after she scratched and bit him.
Defendant was charged by felony information with willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), false imprisonment by violence (§ 236), misdemeanor child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)), and misdemeanor interference with a wireless communication device (§ 591.5). It was also alleged that defendant had two prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law. (§§ 1170.12, 667 subds. (b)-(j).)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant agreed to plead guilty to the corporal injury count and admit a strike prior in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations and a sentence of six years in prison. Following defendant's plea and admission, the trial court sentenced him consistent with the plea agreement. The court also imposed various fines and fees and awarded him 227 days of presentence custody credits.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Thereafter, he filed an ex parte motion for correction of presentence custody credits, arguing that he was entitled to 228 days of presentence custody credits. The trial court granted the motion, amended the judgment and sentence previously imposed, and prepared an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that defendant was awarded 228 days of presentence custody credits.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. (Id. at p. 443.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
BLEASE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
DUARTE, J.