People v. Hodges

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFRED LEE HODGES, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Mar 18, 2009

No. C058583 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2009)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFRED LEE HODGES, Defendant and Appellant. C058583 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento March 18, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 07F08875

BUTZ , J.

On September 11, 2007, at around 11:21 p.m., officers from the Citrus Heights Police Department were dispatched to a reported assault at an apartment complex. The victim, a 37-year-old man, had visible injuries to his face and head, with blood covering his face, neck, hands, and clothing. He did not know who assaulted him. Several eyewitnesses identified defendant Alfred Lee Hodges as the assailant, seeing him hitting and kicking as his motionless victim lay on the ground.

Officers contacted defendant as he was walking down a side street. There was blood on defendant’s right hand, face, shoe, two backpacks, and the cell phone he was carrying. Questioned about the assault, defendant claimed self-defense, although he displayed no visible injuries.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted great bodily injury (id., § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and strike allegations (id., § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court denied defendant’s Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), and imposed a stipulated nine-year state prison term, ordered $16,088 in restitution and various fines, and awarded presentence custody credit.¹

1 The court subsequently modified the custody credits to award an extra day of conduct credit for a total of 157 days of credit (137 days of custody and 20 days of conduct).

Having obtained a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court 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 have elapsed, and we have 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.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: RAYE , Acting P. J.,HULL , J.