P. v. Patrick

Filed 7/24/07 P. v. Patrick CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Robert S. Drake, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Mun. Ct. for the San Bernardino Jud. Dist. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed..

Richard De La Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Stephanie Rene Patrick appeals her conviction of one count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)), one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of attempting to prevent or dissuade a witness from making a police report (Pen. Code, 136.1, subd. (b)(1)).

This court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Appointed counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and has requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We have offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she has not done so.

FACTS IN BRIEF

On September 29, 2005, defendant and her spouse of 15 years, Jeffrey Allen Patrick (husband), engaged in an argument, which escalated into a physical altercation. Defendant tried to wrest the home telephone from husband; and in the course of that struggle, pulled the telephone cord from the wall. Defendant also tried to get a mobile telephone away from husband. The physical struggle caused husband to crash into a window, and he sustained a cut on his forehead. At that point, defendant left with the two younger children, and husband called police.

Defendant was convicted of the offenses listed above, but a jury acquitted her of a charge of maliciously damaging telephone equipment. (Pen. Code, 591.)

The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for 48 months under certain terms and conditions of probation, including a condition that she serve 120 days in the county jail on consecutive weekends.

As noted, appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no arguable issues. Counsel has suggested as potential issues the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, and the propriety of the terms and conditions of probation, which defendant accepted without raising any objection.

We have now completed our review of the entire record, and we conclude that the evidence was fully sufficient to support the convictions found by the jury. Defendant hit husband more than once. She broke two wine glasses on the counter, thus arming herself with a sharp weapon. Their combat was sufficiently forceful to put husbands head through a window causing a bleeding laceration on his forehead. Both defendant and husband were lucky that his injuries were not more severe. When husband attempted to call the police, defendant tried physically to prevent him from calling, both pulling the cord of the house telephone out of the wall and grabbing at husband and spinning him into the window in an attempt to gain control of the mobile telephone. She desisted and fled only after husband became injured.

As to the terms and conditions of probation, defendant did not object to any of the terms and conditions. She was ordered to serve jail time, which she was permitted to do on consecutive weekends. Conditions relating to refraining from substance abuse, paying restitution, compliance with plans for reunification of the family, participation in counseling, and other conditions were reasonably related to defendants rehabilitation.

After a comprehensive review of the entire record, we failed to discover any issue requiring this courts attention.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

/s/ McKinster

J.

We concur:

/s/ Hollenhorst

Acting P.J.

/s/ Richli

J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.