Filed 2/23/18 P. v. Erazo CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GABRIEL ANTONIO ERAZO,

Defendant and Appellant.
C084444

(Super. Ct. No. 16FE014281)






Appointed counsel for defendant Gabriel Erazo has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
I
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On July 25, 2016, around 4:30 p.m., Deputy Sheriff Timothy Mullin responded to a report of a fight in progress at a shopping center. When Deputy Mullin arrived at the scene, he saw defendant and another man, Gregory Murray; both men appeared to have injuries. Murray did not want to press charges but asked to be taken to the hospital; he was transported accordingly. Deputy Mullin told defendant to leave the area. Deputy Mullin watched defendant walk away.
A short time later, Jeremy Jones, a private security officer, found defendant lying down in the driveway of an alley near the shopping center. Defendant’s bicycle was nearby but upside down. Defendant told Jones he had already spoken with law enforcement and they advised him to fix his bicycle and go on his way. Jones watched defendant work on his bicycle for about 10 to 15 minutes, then he saw defendant lie down.
Jones approached defendant and told him that he needed to leave. Defendant became upset and began to swear at Jones. He approached Jones and Jones pushed him backward. Defendant approached Jones again and Jones pushed him backward again; this time, however, defendant fell over his bicycle and to the ground. As he got up from the ground, defendant swung a barber-style blade at Jones. He swung the blade three times, but never made contact. Defendant froze, then ran across the street. Jones called 911.
Deputy Sheriff Nick Sheehan responded to Jones’s 911 call. At the scene, Deputy Sheehan made contact with defendant, who was lying in the dirt with a folding knife in his right hand. Defendant left the knife on the ground while Deputy Sheehan placed defendant in handcuffs. Deputy Mullin soon returned and identified defendant as the man he had spoken to earlier that evening.
The People subsequently charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1) - count one) and assault likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) - count two). Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and a jury trial began on March 7, 2017. The jury ultimately found defendant guilty as charged.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence on count one and placed defendant on five years of formal probation, ordering him to serve 364 days in county jail. The court stayed “any sentence” on count two pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The court awarded defendant 80 days of custody credit and ordered him to pay various fines and fees, waiving those that are not mandatory.
II
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Defendant filed a document with this court, which he titled “Civil Grand Jury Investigation.” In that document he asks numerous questions that appear related to the investigation into his crimes, including questions about the involvement of a gang unit and his medical condition when law enforcement arrived. If this was intended to be a supplemental brief on appeal, we can discern no appealable issues raised in that brief. Having also undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
Blease, Acting P. J.


We concur:



/s/
Mauro, J.



/s/
Renner, J.