Filed 7/25/17 P. v. Delgadillo CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAIME SANDOVAL DELGADILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067189

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1503243)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael B. Donner, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 20, 2016, an amended information alleged that defendant and appellant Jaime Sandoval Delgadillo, on or about May 29, 2012, committed the following: attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder against William Chartraw (the victim) under Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (b) (count 1). The information alleged that defendant personally used a knife, causing the offense to be a serious felony under sections 12022, subdivision (b)(1) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23). The information also alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim, causing the offense to be a serious felony under sections 12022.7, subdivision (a) and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8). The information further alleged that on September 17, 2013, defendant was convicted of being prohibited from owning/possessing ammunition, a felony (§ 30305, subd. (a)), and served a separate prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
On August 29, 2016, the trial court granted a defense motion to bifurcate defendant’s prior, and defendant waived a jury trial on the truth of the prior.
On August 31, 2016, a jury trial commenced. On September 6, 2016, the jury found defendant guilty of attempted premeditated murder (count 1); and found that defendant personally used a knife and personally inflicted great bodily injury. Thereafter, defendant admitted the prior.
On November 4, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years to life, plus five years, as follows: Seven years to life on count 1, plus a consecutive year for the personal knife use, plus a consecutive three years for personally inflicting great bodily injury, and a consecutive year for the prion prior. The court ordered fines and fees and reserved jurisdiction to set victim restitution.
On November 7, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
B. FACTUAL HISTORY
The victim lived at the Louis Rubidoux Nature Center in Jurupa Valley; he was the caretaker. The victim opened the gate in the morning, assisted visitors, and locked the gate in the evening; he would unlock the gate if someone could not get out of the parking lot. The victim lived in a trailer near a permanent building for visitors. The trailer had one bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen, and living room. Approximately 50 yards from the trailer was a tree with a dumpster underneath.
The evening of May 28, 2012, the victim was inside his home watching TV. He heard a knock at the door so he pushed back the drapes to look out his front window to see who was there. He saw two clean-cut Hispanic males, about 18 to 20 years old. One of the males said, “We need help.” He thought they had been locked inside the gate so he unlocked the deadbolt on the door.
The two males pulled the door open, ran in and attacked the victim. The victim tried to defend himself by swinging or kicking. The men didn’t say anything. There was a golf club at the victim’s front door; he did not remember using the golf club to defend himself. Both men hit the victim numerous times; he could not distinguish who was hitting where. The victim testified that he could not tell which of the men had a knife or if both of them did; but he knew one of them did. The victim saw a tattoo on either the hand or arm of one of the men. The victim then heard the men leave. He believed there was a roll of cash totaling $200 in the room, which was not taken. The victim had never seen either man before.
The victim could see blood coming out of his neck so he got a towel; he called 911. After a time, when the police had not arrived, he called again, and was told the officers were in the street but could not get to the trailer because of the locked gate.
At 12:21 a.m., Riverside Sheriff’s Deputies Cynthia Lewis and her partner responded to the 911 call at the Nature Center. The deputies walked to the trailer because the gate was locked. The victim opened the door; they saw the victim had multiple stab wounds and was bleeding profusely. He had difficulty speaking and had shortness of breath. The victim was confused but told the deputies that 10 to 15 minutes earlier, two Hispanic males in their twenties had entered the trailer and assaulted him. It happened very quickly. He did not know the assailants and he did not have any “beefs” or arguments with anyone. The victim was taken to the hospital by ambulance.
Deputy Sheriff Ryan Eddy also responded to the Nature Center. He looked inside the dumpster and found a folding knife covered in blood; he informed the forensic team. The deputy observed what appeared to be blood droplets on dirt, rocks, and leaves on the ground to the north of the dumpster on a walkway that led to the street. He also noticed the golf club inside the trailer.
Forensic Technician Cori Kopitzke collected blood from the dirt inside the Nature Center, on the gate to the roadway, the side of the dumpster, and on the knife. From the trailer, she collected the golf club, and took photographs of blood in numerous places. She did not collect blood samples from inside the trailer.
Riverside Police Detective Scott Levesque was in his marked patrol vehicle about one and a half to two miles from the Nature Center. Detective Levesque observed an individual, identified in court as defendant, walking south along the railroad tracks. The detective indicated for him to walk over. Defendant appeared disheveled; his clothes were dirty and he had a cut on the palm of his hand. Defendant’s hand was bleeding. When Detective Levesque asked defendant how he got the cut, defendant said from climbing over a fence. Detective Levesque called for an ambulance.
David Veitch, a paramedic, responded to the call. Defendant told Veitch he got the cut when he tried to hop a fence earlier four hours prior. Veitch transported defendant to the hospital, where the cut was repaired with three stitches.
The forensic evidence was sent to the Department of Justice for DNA testing. After defendant’s arrest, Detective Brett Johnson took buccal swabs from both the victim and defendant. The swabs were also submitted to the Department of Justice for DNA testing.
An analyst with the California Department of Justice, performed the forensic DNA testing on the evidence. She received buccal swab samples from defendant and the victim and the other items taken from the scene. The DNA on the dirt and rocks matched defendant. The DNA on the knife showed at least two contributors—defendant and the victim. The DNA on the tip of the knife blade showed a single source male that matched the victim. The DNA on the golf club was consistent for only the victim.
On June 20, 2012, after the victim was released from the hospital, he told Detective Johnson what had occurred. On May 14, 2015, the victim told Detective Johnson that he had suffered memory loss after the incident; he could not identify defendant from a photo lineup; all he knew was that the two males were clean-cut Hispanic kids.
The victim sustained 47 total wounds to his body, including his head, ear, back and abdomen. He had abdominal surgery and still had numerous scars.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The trial court properly denied defendant’s petition for resentencing. The trial court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER
J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.