People v. Hernandez CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 9/10/26 P. v. Hernandez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B350012, B350016

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. v. 24CMCF00751, 24CMCF00167) MARTIN CAMPOS HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: On October 15, 2023, appellant and defendant Martin Campos Hernandez (defendant) was arrested at the home of his brother, Jose A.1 Earlier that day, defendant spray-painted the 1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4), we initially refer to the victim in this case by first name and last initial, and thereafter by first name only. No disrespect is intended. “front of the home, [including] the doors and the wall” with Spanish writing to the effect that Jose “was . . . a bad person[.]” The arresting officers searched defendant, found a methamphetamine pipe, and took him to the hospital. The incident caused $1,500 in damages. At about 3:00 a.m. on the next day, defendant returned to Jose’s home. Jose saw defendant spray-painting the family’s two cars, causing $400 in damages. Defendant was again arrested. On April 17, 2024, defendant entered an industrial building and pointed a semiautomatic handgun at an employee. The employee fled and called the police. Defendant did not respond to multiple police commands to exit the building. A police dog was sent in to search for him. The dog put its head underneath a tarp and found defendant hiding there. Defendant shot and injured the dog. He was then arrested. Defendant was charged with one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)),2 one count of assaulting and causing serious injury to a police animal (§ 600, subd. (a)), one count of felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)), and one count of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(2)(A)). The prosecution also alleged that defendant personally used a firearm when committing both assault offenses (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), along with multiple aggravating factors (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2)). On March 17, 2025, defendant filed a petition for mental health diversion (§ 1001.36), citing a recent diagnosis for substance-induced psychotic disorder. The prosecution opposed the petition. The trial court denied the petition, citing “serious 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 public safety concerns” based on “the facts of [the] case” as alleged. On October 16, 2025, defendant pled no contest to assault with a semiautomatic firearm, assaulting a police animal causing serious injury, and felony vandalism. He admitted the firearm use allegation as to the assault with a semiautomatic firearm. He also stipulated to aggravating factors on both assault charges. The trial court accepted defendant’s plea. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of nine years. Defendant timely appealed.3 The trial court issued certificates of probable cause. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. On June 9, 2026, we informed defendant by letter that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. To date, we have received no response from defendant. We have independently examined the entire record on appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our independent review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)

3 On April 9, 2026, we granted defendant’s motion to consolidate his appeals in the assault (B350012) and vandalism (B350016) cases.

3 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109– 110.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

—————————————————————————————— CHAVEZ, Acting P. J. RICHARDSON, J. GOORVITCH, J.