Opinion
D072866
07-06-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARLOS VASQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Correen Ferrentino, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JCF36330) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Correen Ferrentino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted Carlos Vasquez of possession of a weapon in prison (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)) and further found true the allegation he suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court sentenced Vasquez to state prison for a determinate term of four years to be served consecutively to his current term.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Vasquez appeals. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues. Vasquez's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Vasquez the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and he has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.)
In April 2015, a correctional officer at Centinela State Prison observed two inmates fighting in the recreation yard. One of the inmates was bleeding from multiple stab wounds. The responding officers used pepper spray to subdue the two inmates. An officer then located two inmate-manufactured weapons within a few feet of the fighting inmates.
Defendant Vasquez, a prison inmate, was not one of the fighting inmates, but was in the yard close to the fight. One of the responding officers observed Vasquez nervously fidgeting near his ankle and appearing to place an object in his sock. The officer then searched Vasquez and found a clear piece of plastic sharpened into a point wedged between his sock and skin. One of the fighting inmates testified at trial the weapon found in Vasquez's possession was his, he used it to stab the other inmate, and he threw it in the direction of Vasquez before the officers arrived.
After a short deliberation, the jury found Vasquez guilty of custodial possession of a deadly weapon. At a bifurcated trial, the same jury then found the prior strike conviction of attempted murder to be true. At the sentencing hearing, the court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the prior allegation pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court imposed the low term of two years, doubled due to the strike prior conviction, for a total determinate term of four years. The court specified the term would run consecutively to Vasquez's prison term he was currently serving.
DISCUSSION
As noted, Vasquez's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Instead, she identified one possible, but not arguable, issue pursuant to Anders: (1) "[w]as the evidence sufficient to support the verdict?"
After this court received counsel's brief, we provided Vasquez with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief and, although initially seeking an extension of time to file a brief, he ultimately declined to do so. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and have considered the possible issue identified by Vasquez's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Vasquez in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. DATO, J.