People v. Garcia CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD243268
- Trial judge
- Peter C. Deddeh
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Patricia D. Benke (author), Alex C. McDonald, Richard D. Huffman, Sr.
Analysis
The trial court found the defendant guilty of making criminal threats with a knife, applied prior strike and serious felony enhancements, and sentenced him to 12 years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after a Wende review found no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Affirmance of the 12-year prison sentence and application of prior strike/serious felony enhancements“The record also fully supports the trial court's sentencing choices, which were lawful and based in large measure on Garcia's prior burglary conviction, the violence he displayed in making the criminal threats for which he was convicted, and his continuing pursuit of his former wife.” | de novo | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Rejection of defendant's argument that witnesses were untruthful and request for sentence reduction“Our review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must conduct an independent review of the record for error when no issues are raised.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende standard to review the record for error when appointed counsel raises no issues. It identifies the specific factual basis for the conviction and sentencing, supporting the conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionA San Diego jury convicted Gonzalo Garcia of making criminal threats with a personal knife-use enhancement, and the trial court found prior strike, serious felony, and prison term allegations true and sentenced him to 12 years. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Garcia filed a supplemental brief attacking witness credibility and seeking a reduced sentence, and the Court of Appeal found no arguable issues and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Jury's guilty verdict on criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422) with personal knife use (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), challenged by Garcia on the ground the principal witnesses were untruthful“The record shows more than sufficient evidence that Garcia snuck into his former wife's home, waited until she returned from work and, with a knife in his hand, threatened to kill her roommate” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court Garcia's claim that his former wife and her roommate lied is a credibility attack, which a reviewing court cannot entertain under substantial evidence review; the court correctly treated the testimony as sufficient to support the verdict and enhancement. The opinion does not detail the evidence, but the described conduct satisfies the elements of section 422. |
Imposition of a 12-year prison sentence based on the prior strike, prior serious felony, and prior prison term findings, with Garcia requesting a reduced sentence“The record also fully supports the trial court's sentencing choices, which were lawful and based in large measure on Garcia's prior burglary conviction” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court Garcia's request to shorten his sentence to return to his family in Mexico is not a legal ground for reversal; the court reviewed the sentencing choices and found them lawful and supported by legitimate aggravating considerations (prior burglary, violence, continued pursuit of his former wife). Nothing in the opinion suggests an unauthorized term, though the opinion does not set out the sentence computation. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the required Wende procedure, allowed the defendant to file his own brief, and addressed his credibility and sentencing contentions under the proper deferential standards. The opinion is brief and does not lay out the sentence components or cite Kelly for the handling of a supplemental brief, but the result is defensible on the record described.
Opinion
Filed 2/20/14 P. v. Garcia 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, FOURH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063840
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD243268)
GONZALO GARCIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C.
Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On March 25, 2013, a jury found defendant and appellant Gonzalo Garcia guilty of making criminal threats and found that in making the threats Garcia had personally used a knife. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 422, subd. (a) & 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court found that in 2010, Garcia had been convicted of first degree burglary, a prior strike felony and a prior serious felony (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)–(i) & 1170.2); the trial court also found Garcia had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Garcia to a total of 12 years in prison and imposed various fines and fees.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
We granted Garcia permission to file a brief on his own behalf, and he did so. In his brief, Garcia argues that the principal witnesses against him, his former wife and her roommate, were untruthful in their testimony. He asks that his sentence be reduced so that he can return to his family in Mexico.
Our review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. The record shows more than sufficient evidence that Garcia snuck into his former wife's home, waited until she returned from work and, with a knife in his hand, threatened to kill her roommate, with whom he believed she was having a romantic relationship. The record also fully supports the trial court's sentencing choices, which were lawful and based in large measure on Garcia's prior burglary conviction, the violence he displayed in making the criminal threats for which he was convicted, and his continuing pursuit of his former wife.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 We find that Garcia was adequately represented both at trial and on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
McDONALD, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12