People v. Mejia

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK RAMOS MEJIA, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Placer

Date published: May 23, 2007

No. C053131 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 23, 2007)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK RAMOS MEJIA, Defendant and Appellant. C053131 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Placer May 23, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 6240918

HULL , Acting P.J.

In December 2003, defendant Frank Ramos Mejia’s wife moved out of the family home and into a nearby apartment. She obtained a restraining order requiring him to stay 100 yards away from her and their minor child and forbidding him to contact her. Shortly thereafter, defendant picked up the child from outside the apartment and drove away. The police retrieved the child from defendant’s residence and returned the child to the wife. A few days later, defendant telephoned his wife’s cell phone and left a message stating that he would “hang” or “get” her. In the ensuing months, he called her cell phone several times and often left voice messages. One call was received while the wife was at the Roseville Police Department. An officer answered the call. In a later conversation with the officer, defendant admitted that he had been telephoning his wife.

A jury convicted defendant of stalking in violation of a restraining order (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b); further statutory references are to the Penal Code) and four counts of disobeying a domestic relations court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)). He was acquitted of threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury (§ 422) and a fifth count of disobeying a domestic relations order. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years conditioned upon service of 240 days of incarceration.

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 elapsed, and we 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: ROBIE , J., BUTZ , J.