Opinion
B230956
12-21-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CARLOS ORTEGACASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA065975)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elizabeth Lippitt, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Juan Carlos Ortegacastillo appeals from the judgment following his plea of no contest to making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422). We affirm.
All further code references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ortegacastillo took lessons in English from Shantrice Wilkerson. They developed a friendship that on one occasion became romantic. Wilkerson told Ortegacastillo she regretted the event and was under the influence of alcohol when it happened. She told Ortegacastillo she wished to discontinue the romantic aspect of their relationship. On August 27, 2010, Ortegacastillo and Wilkerson went to Ortegacastillo's friend's home in Lancaster. When Ortegacastillo saw Wilkerson texting on her phone, he snatched the phone away from her because he thought she was texting another man; Wilkerson grabbed it back. Ortegacastillo then grabbed her hair and pulled it. Ortegacastillo left the home but later called Wilkerson. During the conversation, Ortegacastillo told her that he wanted to kill her friend, but he was waiting for the right time to do it. He then told Wilkerson he would "show [her] who he is; that he's not to be fucked with."
The next day, Wilkerson found her apartment in shambles - her couches and mattress were cut, the headboard of her bed was stabbed; paint was poured over her bed, sheets and comforter; her clothes were covered with paint; her computer and iPod speakers and DVDs were in her kitchen sink laying in soap and water. A knife was found on her bed. Wilkerson called Ortegacastillo and said, "What's wrong with you? Why would you do this?" Ortegacastillo said "I told you I was gonna show you that I'm not one to fuck with. You see the knife on the bed? That's where your body is supposed to be." Wilkerson had no idea how Ortegacastillo got into her apartment. She called the police.
Ortegacastillo plead no contest to one count of making criminal threats (§ 422) in exchange for a sentence in accordance with recommendations made after a 90-day diagnostic study. If the study recommended probation, Ortegacastillo was to receive probation; if state prison were recommended, he would receive a maximum sentence of 16 months. The diagnostic study was performed and it recommended that Ortegacastillo be sentenced to state prison. In compliance with the plea, Ortegacastillo was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. He was given credit for 236 days in custody including 158 days actual credit and 78 days local conduct credit.
Ortegacastillo appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him. Ortegacastillo's counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified Ortegacastillo by letter that he could submit any ground of appeal, argument or contention which he wished us to consider within 30 days. The letter was returned to us. In Ortegacastillo's opening brief, his counsel indicated he advised Ortegacastillo of his right to file a supplemental brief in this court within 30 days of the date of filing his brief; that in the supplemental brief he may bring to this court's attention any issues he believes deserve review; and that he may ask the court to relieve present counsel. We received no response from Ortegacastillo.
The record does not contain a certificate of probable cause. As a result, we asked Ortegacastillo's counsel to explain to this court why the appeal should not be dismissed. Ortegacastillo's counsel requested we review the record for any issues occurring after the plea, or non-certificate issues.
We have independently reviewed the records and are satisfied that Ortegacastillo's appointed counsel fulfilled his duty. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J.
We concur:
RUBIN, J.
FLIER, J.