Filed 2/2/21 P. v. Jimenez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alvin M. Harrell III, Judge.

Richard L. Fitzer, 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 Jesus Manuel Jimenez 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.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2014, at 12:51 a.m., defendant and three other men lured a man (the boyfriend of the ex-wife of one of the three men) out of his residence by banging on the front door and yelling that someone was breaking into his car. When the man came out, they attacked him. He retreated into his residence, but the group broke down the door and continued the assault. Defendant pulled splintered wood from the broken door frame and stabbed the man in the shoulder. Defendant then tried to stab him in the chest, but the man was able to move to avoid the strike. The group left the man bleeding from his head, arm/shoulder, and hand.

On November 1, 2017, the Fresno County District Attorney filed a third amended information charging defendant with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187;[1] count 1), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and first degree burglary with a nonparticipant present (§§ 459, 460; count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, the information further alleged defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and had suffered a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).

The same day, defendant pled no contest to counts 2 and 3 and admitted the prior strike conviction allegation, in return for an indicated sentence of nine years.

On September 13, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison: on count 3, eight years (four years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law), plus a one-year weapon use enhancement; on count 2, six years (three years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law), stayed pursuant to section 654. The court ordered the nine-year sentence to run consecutively to the 16-month sentence imposed in another case.

On October 30, 2019, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

After reviewing the record, we find no arguable error on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

* Before Peña, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.