P. v. Escamilla
Filed 8/10/07 P. v. Escamilla CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL ALFREDO ESCAMILLA, Defendant and Appellant. | B194692 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA054001) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Burt Pines, Judge. Affirmed.
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant and appellant Manuel Alfredo Escamilla (defendant) not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)[1]), but guilty of the lesser included offense of simple assault ( 240). The jury also found defendant not guilty of vandalism. ( 594, subd. (a).)[2] The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years under various terms and conditions including the condition that defendant serve 60 days in county jail, with 20 days of presentence credit consisting of 14 days of actual custody credit and 6 days of conduct credit. The trial court imposed a $20 court security assessment ( 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a suspended $200 probation revocation restitution fine ( 1202.44).
On appeal, defendants appointed counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
About 8:00 a.m., on November 1, 2006, Mario Topete was driving his Dodge pickup truck on the 118 Freeway near Interstate 5 when he noticed defendant in a green car in the lane to his right. Traffic was stopped. Defendants lane was ending. Topete did not allow defendant to pass him or merge. The car behind Topete allowed defendant to merge. Defendants car then moved to the drivers side of Topetes truck in an area defendant was not supposed to drive. Topete drove straight and defendants mirror struck Topetes car, causing the mirror to break. Traffic was heavy; the cars were traveling about five miles per hour.
Defendants car then struck Topetes truck again, hitting the drivers side door and flattening Topetes tire. The flat tire caused Topetes truck to stop. Defendant continued about 20 to 25 feet in front of Topetes truck. Defendant then placed his car in reverse and crashed into the front of Topetes truck. The hood of Topetes truck opened up. Topete later had to tie down the hood to drive away. After striking Topetes car, defendant pulled up about 10 feet and stopped. Defendant got out of his car and told Topete that if he had a gun, he would have killed Topete. Topete paid about $3,000 to repair the damage to his truck.
Pablo Quijada witnessed the incident. Quijada testified that he saw two cars fighting for the same lane. Defendant tried to merge into Topetes lane, but Topete would not let him. Topete taunt[ed] defendantbraking, speeding, braking, speeding. Defendant tried to move in front of Topete and Topete sped up and swiped the defendants car, knocking off the mirror. After being swiped, defendant moved to the left then smashed into Topetes drivers side door, damaging the door and flattening the tire.
Quijada testified that Topetes truck stalled in its lane. Defendant drove forward about 15 feet before placing his car in reverse and hitting the front of Topetes truck. Defendant pulled forward and again backed into Topetes truck. Defendant pulled to the shoulder, got out of his car and said to Quijada, Did you see it was his fault? Defendant asked Quijada to call the police. Quijada was with Topete when defendant approached Topete. Quijada did not hear defendant say anything about a gun.
Defendant told California Highway Patrol Officer Steve Allen that he became upset when he tried to merge and Topete would not let him. Defendant stated that he slowed down and tried to pass Topete on the left, but Topete also moved to the left. Topetes truck made contact with defendants car, breaking off the mirror. The truck subsequently struck defendants car, again causing defendant to be upset. Defendant said to Officer Allen that he figured if the man in the truck wanted to crash, then he also would crash. Defendant explained that he did not have to worry about it because he had full coverage insurance. Defendant then turned really hard and contacted the left side of the truck. After the truck stopped, defendant drove his car in front of the truck. Defendant put his car in reverse with the intention of blocking the truck from leaving, but he hit the truck once.
Defendant testified that as he tried to merge, Topetes truck hit his car. Defendant then tried to get Topete to pull over to exchange information as he understood the law required. Topetes truck subsequently grazed the side of defendants car and then drove into the front of defendants car. Defendant became frightened of Topete when Topetes truck hit his car again. In an effort to avoid oncoming traffic, defendant jerked his steering wheel to the right and hit Topetes truck. Defendant wanted to block in Topete so Topete could not leave the scene. Defendant put his car in reverse, accidentally striking Topetes truck when he miscalculated his speed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to independently review the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 26, 2007, we gave notice to defendant that counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not submit a brief or letter. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MOSK, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
ARMSTRONG, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
[2] The trial court previously granted defendants motion to dismiss a charge of driving a motor vehicle when defendants driving privilege was suspended or revoked. (Veh. Code, 14601.1, subd. (a).)
