P. v. Lee
Filed 9/28/07 P. v. Lee CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID LEE, Defendant and Appellant. | D050359 (Super. Ct. No. SCD200941) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
David Lee entered a negotiated guilty plea to corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)) with personal infliction of great bodily injury (GBI) (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (e)). The court sentenced him to prison for seven years: the three-year middle term for corporal injury to a cohabitant and the four-year middle term for personal infliction of GBI. Lee appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On the night of August 2, 2006, Lee went to the apartment of Sheri Deru, his former live-in girlfriend. He drank a bottle of champagne and had consumed a bottle of wine earlier that night. After an argument, Deru told Lee to leave. He said he needed money for gas. Deru agreed to give it to him if he left. She got out three dollars and told him to step outside. He refused, pried open her hand and grabbed the money. He punched Deru in the ribs, head and eye. Her eye bled heavily and she almost fell to the floor. Lee slammed the door and left. Deru called 911 and an ambulance took her to the hospital.
Deru's lower eyelid was torn off. She suffered an orbital floor fracture, underwent surgery and had a plastic implant. At the time of the preliminary hearing, she was still suffering from double vision and headaches, and there was a chance she would have to undergo further eye surgery.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, he lists, as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the victim restitution award; (2) whether the court abused its discretion by denying his request for probation; (3) whether it erred by imposing the GBI enhancement, as GBI is an element of the underlying Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) violation; and (4) whether the court correctly calculated his presentence credits.
We granted Lee permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Lee has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
AARON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
