Opinion
E072751
03-20-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA CODY OSBORN, Defendant and Appellant.
Paul R. Kraus, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BAF1600521) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael B. Donner, Judge. Affirmed. Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Joshua Cody Osborn guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1.) The jury also found that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI) upon a person not an accomplice to the offense. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) A trial court imposed the midterm of three years on count 1, plus three years on the GBI enhancement, for a total term of six years in state prison. It also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
Defendant filed a timely appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2015, J.B. (the victim) was repairing an air conditioning unit at the apartment complex where defendant and his girlfriend, Ms. A., lived. Ms. A. worked for the victim. She brought her daughter to the victim's work van, which was parked at the apartment complex, because she wanted to show her daughter that she knew how to do welding. The van had tools and supplies in it. Ms. A. told the victim she did not want to work for him anymore, so he said he needed the work phone he gave her back. Ms. A. went to her apartment to retrieve it, but did not come back out. The victim was waiting in the driver's seat of his van. After five or 10 minutes, he called the cell phone, and Ms. A. said she was coming out with it. The victim called back a few times, and defendant answered it once and said he would bring it out. The victim was "ticked off" and said he was going to call Child Protective Service on defendant if he did not bring the phone. Ms. A. and defendant came outside, and defendant looked upset. They approached the van, someone opened the door, and Ms. A. lay on top of the victim, as if to protect him. Defendant grabbed a pipe wrench that was in the van and hit the victim several times on the head with it. The victim's head started bleeding, and defendant and Ms. A. backed away. The victim reported the incident to the police. A police officer took photographs of the victim's van, showing blood on the seat, and the pipe wrench in the backseat. The pipe wrench had blood on it. The officer went to the apartment complex and talked to Ms. A. She told him defendant climbed on top of the victim and began hitting him.
At trial, the victim testified that Ms. A. "seemed to be a little high." --------
ANALYSIS
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and three potential arguable issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence that defendant was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and did not act in self-defense; (2) whether the court erred when it admitted evidence of the victim's opinion that Ms. A. was under the influence of drugs; and (3) whether the court erred when it instructed the jury that " '[a] deadly weapon other than a firearm is any object, instrument, or weapon that is inherently deadly or one that is used in such a way that it is capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury,' when a pipe wrench is not inherently deadly as a matter of law." Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MILLER
J.