legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Hernandez CA5

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Hernandez CA5
By
11:30:2017

Filed 9/29/17 P. v. Hernandez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALONSO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074054

(Super. Ct. No. F14907299)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M. Skiles, Judge.

Gordon S. Brownell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appointed counsel for defendant Alonso Hernandez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On July 31, 2014, defendant, a truck driver, was driving a “big rig” truck while he had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.14 percent. He caused a collision, killed two people, and injured at least two more people. He thought he had killed someone, so he kept driving and fled the scene.

On January 4, 2015, the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant with five felonies and numerous special allegations.

On November 12, 2015, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s Marsden[1] motion for substitute appointed counsel.

On March 1, 2016, defendant pled no contest to all counts as charged: two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b); count 3), driving a commercial vehicle with a blood-alcohol level of 0.04 percent or more and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (d); count 4), and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2); count 5). He also admitted multiple special allegations regarding his personal infliction of great bodily injury, use of a dangerous weapon, fleeing the scene, and proximately causing death or bodily injury to more than one victim.

On June 3, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant a total of 17 years four months in prison.

Having reviewed the entire record, we find no arguable issues on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

[1] People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.





Description Appointed counsel for defendant Alonso Hernandez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On July 31, 2014, defendant, a truck driver, was driving a “big rig” truck while he had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.14 percent. He caused a collision, killed two people, and injured at least two more people. He thought he had killed someone, so he kept driving and fled the scene.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 5 views. Averaging 5 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale