Opinion
E052281
08-02-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL OROZCO REYES, Defendant and Appellant.
Suzanne G. Wrubel, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF152782)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Suzanne G. Wrubel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant Daniel Orozco Reyes of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (a vehicle) and the court sentenced him to 36 months of probation and 270 days in county jail (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)). This appeal followed. As discussed below, we affirm the conviction and sentence.
On August 31, 2009, defendant followed his girlfriend out of their apartment as she went to meet another man. Defendant saw the other man waiting in his truck in the parking lot of the apartment building. Defendant pulled his girlfriend out of her Ford Expedition SUV by her hair, got in and drove after the other man. They engaged in a high-speed chase through the parking lot, during which defendant rammed the other man's truck three times. The third ramming took place during a turn, causing the other man to lose control of his truck and crash into a carport and three parked cars. A witness heard defendant revving the engine of his Expedition as he hit the man in the truck the third time.
Upon defendant's 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
MILLER
J.