Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Peter M. Schultz, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 07CM2704
William A. Malloy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J. and Gomes, J.
It was alleged in an information filed October 15, 2007, that appellant Jairo Javier Vasquez committed assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), and that in committing that offense he personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). On December 20, 2007, appellant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to the substantive offense. On January 28, 2008, the court, after denying appellant’s motion for substitute counsel, imposed the four-year upper term on the instant offense.
Appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
Our factual statement is taken from testimony adduced at the preliminary hearing.
On August 17, 2007, appellant and Juan Celis were at a party at a recreation center when a fight involving several people broke out. During the fight, witnesses saw appellant on top of Celis on the ground. Thereafter, someone pulled appellant off of Celis, and appellant walked away. He had blood on his clothes.
Police officers, responding to a report of a disturbance, arrived on the scene at about the time the fight broke out. One officer found a knife on the ground near where Celis was lying. The knife had blood on it.
Celis told police he was at a party when a fight broke out, someone landed on top of him and he was injured. Celis, who according to the investigating officer was “somewhat intoxicated” when the officer spoke to him, did not know if he was stabbed or if he had been cut with a beer bottle. He suffered a laceration on his abdomen, approximately six inches in length, one-quarter inch wide and one-quarter inch deep. The investigating officer also observed a “second injury” on Celis’s abdomen, approximately one and one-half inches “across.” The officer could not determine the depth and width of this injury. The attending physician told the officer that Celis’s injuries “were consistent to have been caused with a knife.”
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.