From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ocasio

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 8, 2012
H036945 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)

Opinion

H036945

02-08-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARONELL OCASIO, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. C1080316, CC944688)

Defendant Baronell Ocasio was charged in two cases (superior court case Nos. C1080316 (Case 316) and CC944688 (Case 688)). The complaint in Case 316 charged defendant with a single count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), and alleged two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and one prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The complaint in Case 688 contained five counts. Counts 1 through 3 were felonies: arson (§ 451, subd. (d)), first degree burglary (§ 459), and criminal threats (§ 422). Counts 4 and 5 were misdemeanors: exhibiting a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)) and vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)). The complaint also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior strike convictions and prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)).

Further unspecified section references are to the Penal Code.

The offenses alleged in Case 688 occurred on May 26, 2009, when defendant was reported to have broken into his ex-girlfriend's home, brandished a knife at her new boyfriend, slashed a tire on a car in her garage, and threatened to harm her and her daughter and to burn their house down. Thereafter, an acquaintance drove defendant to a storage yard where defendant claimed he wanted to retrieve something from a boat he had in storage there. Instead, defendant set fire to the boat, which, as it turned out, belonged to defendant's ex-girlfriend.

The offense charged in Case 316 occurred while defendant was in custody in Case 688. On May 11, 2010, an investigation revealed that defendant had broken light bulbs and damaged the housing and wiring of the light fixtures in the shower area of the jail. Defendant explained that he had been frustrated waiting for approximately two hours in the shower for an escort back to his cell.

Defendant pleaded no contest to felony vandalism in Case 316 and admitted one of the strikes and the prison prior. The second strike was dismissed. In Case 688 defendant pleaded no contest to all five counts and admitted the strike allegations with the understanding that the two serious felony allegations would be dismissed. There were no other conditions attached to the plea.

Defendant's attorney filed a lengthy statement in mitigation in support of a motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, asking the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike one or both of the strike allegations. The trial court appointed a psychiatrist to examine defendant pursuant to Evidence Code section 1017. Thereafter, at a hearing on May 6, 2011, the trial court heard the Romero motion and concluded that under the circumstances there was no basis upon which the court could lawfully strike the strikes.

In Case 688, the trial court dismissed the prior serious felony allegations and sentenced defendant to a consecutive 25 years to life on counts 1 through 3, staying the term for count 3 pursuant to section 654, for a total term of 50 years to life. The court imposed 30 days in jail on counts 4 and 5, which was deemed served. In Case 316, the trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months (the mitigated term doubled) for the single count of vandalism. The court awarded custody credits and imposed fees and fines as recommended in the probation report.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Upon the request of defendant's counsel, we granted defendant an extension of that deadline to December 14, 2011. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.

I. DISCUSSION

Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause, and, therefore, the appeal is inoperative insofar as it might challenge constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. (§ 1237.5, subd. (a).) The certificate is not required when the notice of appeal states that it is based upon the sentence or other matters that arose after entry of the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) Accordingly, we have reviewed the whole record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon the sentence and matters that arose after entry of the plea. Having done so, we can find no arguable issue for appeal.

II. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

Premo, J. WE CONCUR:

Rushing, P.J.

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.


Summaries of

People v. Ocasio

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Feb 8, 2012
H036945 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Ocasio

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARONELL OCASIO, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Date published: Feb 8, 2012

Citations

H036945 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2012)