Opinion
E066535
01-10-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KRYSTAL ANN DONNA MEJIA, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard L. Fitzer, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FWV1402146) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Krystal Ann Donna Mejia appeals from her conviction after a jury trial of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On June 14, 2014, defendant was at a bar. She approached three women at a table and began dropping coins on their table. Words were exchanged. Defendant called one of the women (the victim) a "cunt." The victim got up to confront defendant, and defendant and the victim began pushing each other, pulling hair and hitting each other. The victim felt a sharp poke in her ribcage and initially believed it was a fork. As the two were being separated by bar patrons and employees, defendant unfolded a switchblade knife and took two swings with the knife toward the victim from three to four feet away. The bartender forcefully took the knife from defendant and gave it to the bar manager. Defendant followed the bar manager around, trying to get him to give her back her knife. The victim had a red mark on her ribcage where the sharp object had poked her, but the clothing was not torn and the skin was not broken. The knife measured eight inches long in the open position.
On June 27, 2014, the People filed an information charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon and alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (b)-(i)), also for assault with a deadly weapon.
On July 9, 2014, the trial court declared a doubt as to defendant's competency and suspended proceedings pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. On August 13, 2014, the court found defendant competent and reinstated proceedings.
On October 15, 2014, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. Defendant waived her right to a jury trial on the strike allegation.
On October 20, 2014, the court declared a doubt as to defendant's competency and suspended proceedings. On January 9, 2015, the court declared defendant mentally incompetent to stand trial. On June 24, 2015, the court ordered defendant committed to Patton State Hospital until competency could be restored, for a maximum of three years, with credit for time served.
On October 19, 2015, the court found defendant competent and reinstated proceedings. Defendant again waived her right to a jury trial on the strike allegation. The court found the strike allegation true.
On January 26, 2016, defense counsel filed a motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and Penal Code section 1385 inviting the trial court to dismiss the strike. The People filed its opposition on January 29, 2016.
On June 14, 2016, defense counsel withdrew its Romero motion. The court sentenced the defendant, as agreed, to the low term of two years, doubled to four years for the strike prior. After credit for time served and Penal Code section 4019 credits, defendant was to be released the following day.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant's appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a brief statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court undertake an independent review of the record. We have also afforded defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the entire record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. SLOUGH
J.