Opinion
C085977
10-19-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARMANDO MEDINA-ZAMORA, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. STKCRFE201611638)
Appointed counsel for defendant Armando Medina-Zamora filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked 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).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
The victim immigrated to America in December 2015. She arrived in Stockton, California with her husband and two children; they shared a home with several people, including defendant and the victim's mother. The victim knew defendant's family in Mexico, but did not know defendant before she arrived in Stockton. Initially, she did not have any problems with defendant. Things changed when the victim and her family moved into a new home.
Defendant rented a room from the victim in her family's new home. When he moved in, he started acting differently, threatening her by saying she had to obey him or he would stop giving her car rides. He demanded the victim wash his clothes, prepare his food, and tend to him as though he were her husband. Defendant threatened to lie and tell people they were lovers if she did not comply.
The victim and her mother also worked with defendant in a taqueria owned by the victim's cousin. Defendant would wait for her in areas where there were no cameras and he would try to kiss her forcefully. When she asked defendant to stop, he would laugh and tell her she was crazy. She did not report defendant's conduct because she was afraid she would lose her job if she did.
On August 23, 2016, the victim and defendant worked until about 10:30 p.m. The victim now had her driver's license and drove home from work. Defendant followed her. When she got out of her car, defendant ran to her, grabbed her by the arms, threw her purse to the ground, and refused to let her go. He told her he was in love with her and she had to be his. Holding the victim, defendant ripped her bra, kissed her neck, and touched bare skin on her breasts.
She screamed out for her mom and tried to get away but could not. When she tried to free herself from defendant's grasp, he pulled her shirt and ripped it. Around that same moment, the victim's mother came out of the house and her husband arrived home.
When the police arrived, they took photographs of the victim that showed a red mark on her breast and scratches by her right armpit.
The People charged defendant with assault with the intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220, subd. (a)(1)) and sexual battery of a restrained person (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a)). A jury subsequently found defendant not guilty of the assault charge but guilty of sexual battery of a restrained person.
The trial court denied defendant's request for probation and sentenced him to the middle term of three years in state prison. The court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded him 576 days of custody credit. Defendant filed a later motion to correct his custody credits and the court amended the award to a total of 768 days of custody credit.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 have received no communication from defendant.
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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RAYE, P. J. We concur: MURRAY, J. DUARTE, J.