Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR275358.
Kline, P.J.
Appellant Robert Earl Reed appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered on the basis of a jury verdict, of assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). His court appointed attorney has filed a brief raising no legal issues and requesting that this court independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Our review discloses no arguable issue and we shall therefore affirm the judgment.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 14, 2010 (all dates are in that year), the District Attorney of Solano County filed a two-count complaint charging appellant with battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)) with the personal use of a deadly weapon, a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) (count 1), and assault with a deadly weapon by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and also charging that appellant inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) (count 2). Both counts were charged as “serious felonies” within the meaning section 1192.7, subdivision (c).
On April 15, a declaration of conflict of interest was filed by the public defender and, on April 26, the court relieved the public defender and appointed the conflict defender. On May 10, the preliminary hearing that had been set for May 11 was continued to June 2 on motion of the defense. However, on June 1, defense counsel expressed “doubt” about appellant’s competence to stand trial and, on June 8, proceedings were suspended pursuant to section 1368. Also on June 8, the court appointed Murray Eiland, M.D., and Jennifer Kirkland, Ph.D, to examine appellant and report to the court, in writing, as to his mental competence to stand trial. At the request of the district attorney, a competency hearing was set for July 29. On that date, the matter was set for trial on August 30 on the issue of competency. At the trial, the matter was submitted to the court on the reports of doctors Eiland and Kirkland. The court found appellant competent within the meaning of section 1368, and ordered criminal proceedings reinstated.
At the preliminary hearing held on September 17, appellant was held to answer on the offenses charged in the original complaint. On September 21, an information was filed charging the same offenses. Appellant was again arraigned and plead not guilty on October 1.
Jury trial commenced on November 22, and was completed the same day. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of the battery alleged in count 1, but guilty of the assault alleged in count 2. With respect to that offense, the jury also found true the allegation that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury on his victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
FACTS
The victim, Allen Cason, testified that he and appellant lived together for about seven days in an apartment at 812 Delaware Street in Fairfield. Appellant was domineering and the relationship was unfriendly. Appellant, who lived there first, acted as if he owned the apartment and would not allow Cason to use the dishes and other items. An altercation broke out on the morning of April 12, 2010. Appellant came out of the kitchen holding a butcher knife above his head. Cason rose from his chair, grabbed appellant by his knees and tried to slam him into the wall. As they were falling, appellant stabbed Cason in the back. During the ensuing struggle, Cason grabbed the knife and ran from the apartment. The entire incident lasted about five minutes. Cason suffered cuts on his shoulder blade, neck, armpit, and an ear.
Fairfield Police Corporal Mel Ferro, who was called to the scene, testified that appellant told him he was defending his house and that “I asked him to leave, and he wouldn’t so I stabbed him.” Ferro saw blood on the wall near a light switch by the front door and found the knife on the first floor of the building.
Detective Tony DeTomasi interviewed appellant at the hospital shortly after the incident. Appellant stated that Cason was a roommate. Because he had been disrespectful and a problem around the apartment complex, appellant told DeTomasi that he asked Cason to leave. When Cason refused, “[h]e [appellant] told Mr. Cason ‘If you don’t leave, I'll kill you.’ Mr. Cason refused. [Appellant] then said he got a knife, came back into the room where he [Cason] was seated, like the family room area, and tried to kill him and stabbed him several times.” DeTomasi testified that appellant told him several times that he did not feel threatened by Cason. He took the action “that he felt was appropriate.” Appellant said he considered it “a waste of time to call the police because he was going to handle the matter himself.” Appellant told DeTomasi he was in the hospital because he cut his hand while struggling with Cason for possession of the knife.
Dr. Caesar Djavaherian, an emergency room physician, examined and treated Cason. Cason suffered three deep stab wounds to the back, one superficial wound there, and cuts on his ear, upper inner arm and neck. None of his wounds were life threatening.
Testifying in his own behalf, appellant said he never told Cason he was going to kill him and did nothing to provoke him, but acted in self defense after Cason attacked him. He grabbed the knife from the counter because Cason was bigger than him. The reason he had asked Cason to leave was “he had problems with the neighbors and stuff. They had like-you know, like a crack-head.... [H]e didn’t deserve to live there. So I made like numerous complaints with the company that put him there....” He never told Cason he would kill him, but was afraid for himself when Cason attacked him. Appellant denied telling the police that he wanted Cason to move out that day and told him he would kill him if he refused.
DISCUSSION
The reports of doctors Eiland and Kirkland amply support the trial court’s finding that appellant was mentally competent to stand trial.
No material evidence was received by the court that was legally inadmissible and objected to nor was any admissible evidence impermissibly excluded over objection.
No instructional error was claimed nor is any shown by the record.
The verdict is supported by substantial evidence.
Appellant was at all times represented by able counsel who protected his rights and interests.
The sentence imposed is authorized by law.
Our independent review having revealed no arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
We concur: Haerle, J., Lambden, J.