Filed 6/29/17 P. v. Guadarrama CA4/3




NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN CARLOS GUADARRAMA,

Defendant and Appellant.


G054145

(Super. Ct. No. 14CF3234)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *

FACTS
After years of a happy and uneventful marriage, appellant Juan Carlos Guadarrama encountered several personal tragedies and began drinking to excess. He started accusing his wife Amalia of sexual indiscretions. Then he accused her of maintaining an illicit sexual relationship with her sister Anita. He obsessed over this for months, going so far as to secretly record her conversations and replay them to Amalia, insisting they proved that she and Anita were engaged in abhorrent conduct.
Finally he and Amalia separated. One day he called and asked for a ride to work. She drove to his location and picked him up. In fact, his place of employment was closed. He took a BB gun out of his back pack and shot her repeatedly. Then he attacked her with a large knife. Amalia fled, but not before receiving wounds serious enough to require 13 days of hospitalization, including time in intensive care and 2 surgeries.
Appellant escaped arrest for three days. During that time he phoned a friend and asked for a ride. When she refused, he threatened to kill her and her children. After his arrest, appellant admitted to police that he had planned his attack on Amalia for three days. Notes were found in which he expressed his distress about her relationship with her sister, his inability to live without her, and his determination that she and her sister would never be allowed to live a happy life together. He expressed his plan to “take Amalia to another world where they could be happy together.” He mentioned suicide.
A jury convicted him of attempted murder and found he had used a deadly weapon and inflicted great bodily injury. They also convicted him of terrorist threats for his statements to the woman who refused him a ride that he would kill her and her children. He was sentenced to a determinate term of two years for making criminal threats, and consecutive terms of five years for inflicting great bodily injury and one year for use of a deadly weapon in the attempted murder. To those was added an indeterminate term of seven years to life for the attempted murder.
DISCUSSION
Guadarrama filed an appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him on that appeal. Counsel filed a brief which fully set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court he could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. Appellant was invited to express his own objections to the proceedings against him, but did not. Under the law, this put the onus on us to review the record and see if we could find any issues that might result in some kind of amelioration of appellant’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which appellant would prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail.
We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. This is not surprising. In fact, it is what we find in the vast majority of cases in which appellate counsel files a Wende brief. Even the most cynical observer of the legal system would have to recognize that appellate counsel has a financial incentive for finding issues. The simple matter is counsel makes more money if he/she finds an issue that is arguable than if he/she does not. So while it sometimes happens that an appellate court will find issues after appellate counsel has thrown in the towel, it is unusual.
This case is not unusual – at least not in any way that benefits appellant. The case against him was unusually strong, but that is the only thing remarkable about it. Appellate counsel considered and rejected the possibility of attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, and we can certainly see why. The evidence was not only considerably greater than the legal standard requires, it was overwhelming.
We have looked at the evidence concerning appellant’s mental state – which was clearly disturbed – but based on the testimony of the doctor who spoke to that, we cannot see any basis for an assertion of error. There were no controversial searches or questionable means used in obtaining statements. The instructions appear appropriate, and we cannot quarrel with the judge’s handling of the jury’s question.
There was a great deal of community support expressed for appellant at sentencing. A large number of people submitted statements attesting to his character and work ethic, but there was nothing that would have rendered any of the court’s sentencing decisions an abuse of discretion.
In short, we have searched for other issues and we have found none that we think has any chance of success. We believe counsel’s decision to file a Wende brief was well-advised. The judgment is affirmed.




BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:



O’LEARY, P. J.



MOORE, J.