People v. Petrungaro CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from judgments
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN446291, SCN428244
- Trial judge
- Daniel F. Link
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), O'Rourke, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court convicted Petrungaro of multiple felonies and misdemeanors, revoked his probation on a prior conviction, and sentenced him to prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments after an independent review under People v. Wende found no arguable issues on appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of convictions and sentences in cases SCN446291 and SCN428244“Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the convictions.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard of review for a Wende appeal, which requires an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues. The court found none and affirmed. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief raising no issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record to ensure the appeal is not frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende protocol for a no-issue appeal. It accurately states that the court reviewed the record and found no arguable issues, leading to an affirmance.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionIn consolidated cases, a jury convicted Petrungaro of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury with a GBI enhancement, simple battery, attempted carjacking, DUI, hit and run, and vandalism, and the trial court imposed 6 years 10 months in prison while revoking probation in an earlier felon-in-possession case and imposing a concurrent two-year term. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the defendant filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed both judgments.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction on jury verdicts in case SCN446291 (counts 1, 2 as lesser included simple battery, 5-9, with GBI finding on count 1)“We have reviewed the entire records as required by Wende. We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgments.” | unclear | correct | agree with court This is a Wende independent review; the opinion recites facts supporting each conviction (assault with GBI to Mr. Moore, vandalism of the motorhome, attempt to commandeer a car, DUI with drug test, two collisions) and the jury acquitted on the threat and dissuasion counts, suggesting a functioning adversarial trial. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable issue, and the procedural requirements of Wende (notice of right to file supplemental brief) were followed. |
Sentence of 6 years 10 months in case SCN446291“Petrungaro received three years for count 1, three years for the infliction of great bodily injury allegation, and 10 months for count 6. For the remaining counts, the trial court denied probation and sentenced Petrungaro to time served.” | unclear | correct | unsure The components check out arithmetically: the middle term for section 245(a)(4) is three years, the section 12022.7(a) enhancement is a fixed three years, and 10 months is one-third of the 2.5-year middle term for attempted carjacking. However, the opinion does not say whether punishment on count 2 (simple battery of Mr. Moore, apparently the same act as the count 1 assault) was stayed under section 654; a time-served term may raise a stay question the opinion does not discuss, so I cannot confirm the sentence is entirely free of arguable issues from this record. |
Revocation of probation and imposition of a concurrent two-year prison term in case SCN428244 (felon in possession, section 29800(a)(1))“Based on his charges in case number SCN446291, the trial court revoked Petrungaro’s probation in case number SCN428244.” | unclear | correct | agree with court New convictions during the probationary period plainly support revocation, and two years is the middle term for section 29800, imposed concurrently. Nothing in the opinion suggests an arguable issue. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable issues before affirming.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende procedure, recites the facts, charges, verdicts, and sentence components, confirms the defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, and affirms after independent review. It does not cite People v. Kelly or discuss whether the simple battery count was stayed under section 654, but the result is defensible on the record described.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 6/26/25 P. v. Petrungaro CA4/1 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. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084556, D084558
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCN446291, SCN428244) ANTHONY ALLEN PETRUNGARO, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Anthony Allen Petrungaro appeals from his convictions in two cases. After we consolidated the matters, Petrungaro’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Petrungaro did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We therefore affirm the convictions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 14, 2022, Petrungaro pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon (Pen. Code,1 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) in Superior Court case number SCN428244 (SCN 428244). On March 15, 2022, the trial court suspended imposition of Petrungaro’s sentence and imposed two years of formal probation. On August 3, 2023, Tina Moore called 911 to report Petrungaro attempting to get inside her motorhome. Petrungaro eventually tore the motorhome’s door off its hinges and entered. According to Ms. Moore, she was still speaking to the 911 operator when Petrungaro took her phone and broke it over his knee. John Moore, the owner of the property where Ms. Moore’s motorhome was located, confronted Petrungaro.2 Petrungaro punched Mr. Moore in the head twice, causing Mr. Moore to fall to the ground. Petrungaro then kicked Mr. Moore and stomped on his head. Mr. Moore suffered a laceration to his chin requiring five stitches, and his left eye was swollen shut causing him to miss a few days of work. Mr. Moore also reported losing consciousness during the attack and seeing black dots and color flashes in his left eye after the attack. Christina Brown, Mr. Moore’s girlfriend, intervened during the assault. Brown heard Petrungaro saying, “ ‘You’re dead. You’re dead,’ ” and accusing Mr. Moore of sleeping with Petrungaro’s wife. Brown sprayed Petrungaro with pepper spray, and he left the property.
1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
2 Despite the same last name, Mr. Moore and Ms. Moore are not related. 2 Petrungaro drove away, ultimately crashing into two vehicles and escaping on foot because his car was inoperable. Petrungaro approached another vehicle, demanding that the driver get out and attempting to open a passenger’s door. Unsuccessful, Petrungaro hid behind a Home Depot, where police officers arrested him. Petrungaro exhibited symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance, and a test of his blood revealed the presence of methamphetamine, amphetamine, and fentanyl. Due to the August 3, 2023 incident, the San Diego District Attorney’s Office charged Petrungaro with nine counts in Superior Court case number SCN446291 (SCN446291). Regarding Mr. Moore, the District Attorney’s Office charged Petrungaro with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1) and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2), alleging that Petrungaro personally inflicted great bodily injury in both counts (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a); 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). Prosecutors charged Petrungaro with making a criminal threat for his statements in front of Ms. Brown (§ 422; count 3), as well as attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 4) and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A); count 5) for Petrungaro’s actions with Ms. Moore and her motorhome. Finally, regarding his effort to commandeer a car while escaping from Mr. Moore’s home, Petrungaro was charged with attempted carjacking (§§ 215, subd. (a), 664; count 6); driving under the influence of drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (f); count 7); and two counts of hit and run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); counts 8 & 9). Based on his charges in case number SCN446291, the trial court revoked Petrungaro’s probation in case number SCN428244. At his 2024 trial in case number SCN446291, the jury found Petrungaro guilty of counts 1 and 5 through 9, finding that he personally 3 inflicted great bodily injury in count 1. The jury also found Petrungaro guilty of the lesser included offense of simple battery in count 2, and not guilty of counts 3 and 4. In case number SCN446291, the trial court sentenced Petrungaro to 6 years and 10 months in prison.3 In case number SCN428244, the trial court sentenced Petrungaro to a concurrent two years. Petrungaro filed notices of appeal in both cases, which we have consolidated. Petrungaro’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende. Both Petrungaro’s counsel and this court informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Petrungaro declined to do so. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire records as required by Wende. We find no arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the judgments. We therefore affirm the judgments in both cases. Competent counsel has represented Petrungaro on this appeal.
3 Petrungaro received three years for count 1, three years for the infliction of great bodily injury allegation, and 10 months for count 6. For the remaining counts, the trial court denied probation and sentenced Petrungaro to time served. 4 DISPOSITION The judgments are affirmed.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12