P. v. Guzman
Filed 8/3/07 P. v. Guzman CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOE RAMIREZ GUZMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | H030833 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC599960) |
On June 28, 2005, defendant Joe Ramirez Guzman punched a roommate in her face, breaking her nose and left cheek bone. Defendant, who was on parole at the time, absconded. He was arrested on August 16, 2005. By Information dated January 24, 2006 defendant was charged with battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, 242‑243, subd. (d)), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and several prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667.5, subds. (b)‑(i), 1170.12). He pleaded guilty to the assault charge and the trial court dismissed the battery count pursuant to the plea agreement. The court dismissed one of the prior convictions in response to defendants Romero[1]motion, and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison. The court awarded no presentence custody credit, finding that defendants presentence custody was due to a parole violation based on mixed conduct.
On March 30, 2006, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment, giving rise to his first appeal in this court (Case No. H030073). On October 6, 2006, defendant filed a request to abandon the appeal, and we dismissed the appeal on October 10, 2006.
On September 20, 2006, defendant filed a motion in the trial court for an order awarding additional presentence credit. Defendant pointed to one portion of the applicable parole violation documents suggesting that the sole reason for his reconfinement was the assault in the present case. On October 18, 2006, after denying defendants request to continue the hearing on the motion to allow defendant to be present, the court heard the motion. The probation officer pointed to other portions of the parole violation documents indicating that the parole board found probable cause to revoke defendants parole for three separate reasons: the assault, possession of drug paraphernalia, and absconding. The court thus reiterated its previous finding that the parole violation involved mixed conduct and denied defendants motion.
On November 1, 2006, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the courts order denying the motion for presentence credit. That appeal is now before this court.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts, but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was not entitled to additional presentence custody credit because his presentence custody was based on mixed conduct. (See People v. Bruner (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1178.)
The judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________
Mihara, J.
WE CONCUR:
_____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.
_____________________________
Duffy, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.
[1]People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
