Filed 8/17/22 P. v. Razo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Stephen J. Gallon, Judge. Affirmed.

Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Cesar Razo appeals from a conviction following a jury trial. For the reasons forth post, we affirm the judgment.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On June 8, 2021, an information charged defendant with two counts of premeditated attempted murder under Penal Code[1] sections 664 and 187 (counts 1 and 2), with allegations that he had personally inflicted great bodily injury under section 12022.7 and used a deadly weapon under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The information also alleged that defendant had previously sustained a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and a prior strike conviction under sections 667, subdivision (c)(e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).

On August 26, 2021, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder on both counts and found true that defendant had inflicted great bodily injury and used a deadly weapon. After the jury reported that they were deadlocked as to the premeditation finding on count 1; the trial court declared a mistrial as to the premeditation finding.

After waiving his right to a jury trial, on October 22, 2021, defendant admitted the truth of the prior conviction allegation. Moreover, the prosecution dismissed the premeditation allegation as to count 1.

On January 14, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years to life plus an additional 10 years: 14 years to life for attempted murder (count 2), and five years doubled to 10 years for attempted murder (count 1). The court struck allegations that defendant had inflicted great bodily injury and used a deadly weapon.

On February 16, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. COUNT 1: ATTEMPTED MURDER ON DECEMBER 28, 2019

In December 2019, defendant lived with his family, including his sister Maricela Razo and her boyfriend William Barba, in Moreno Valley. About two years prior, defendant and Barba had a fist fight; however, they currently had no issues or problems.

On December 28, 2019, around 9:45 p.m., Barba was watching television and eating. Defendant approached Barba and suddenly stabbed Barba’s chest and arm about nine times. Maricela[2] pulled defendant away from Barba. When Maricela asked what happened, defendant stated that Barba was stealing from the family. Maricela called 911.

Defendant left before police arrived. Maricela told the responding authorities that defendant had been using drugs and she believed he was under the influence. Barba was transported to the hospital where he received care for his injuries.

2. COUNT 2: ATTEMPTED MURDER ON JANUARY 1, 2020

On December 31, 2019, Oscar M., defendant, and other friends were “hanging out on New Year’s Eve.” Oscar knew defendant from other friends; they had no prior altercations. That night, some people in the group smoked methamphetamine. Oscar did not see defendant smoke methamphetamine. At some point, defendant stated that he had stabbed his brother-in-law; Oscar did not believe defendant.

On January 1, 2020, around 2:50 p.m., Oscar and defendant were passengers in a car travelling from Hemet to Moreno Valley. Defendant held a knife between his legs. When Oscar asked defendant to see the knife, defendant refused. After accusing Oscar of stealing from his family, defendant stabbed Oscar’s chest and arms. Oscar sustained three stab wounds to his right arm and one wound to his chest.

Afterwards, defendant “seemed to come back” to himself and the attack stopped. Oscar told defendant to get out of the car; defendant complied. Oscar’s friends took him to the hospital. Oscar received staples and stitches for his injuries.

Police arrested defendant in Moreno Valley approximately 90 minutes after the incident.

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 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. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error:

1. “Was there sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support the true finding on the premeditation allegation attached to the attempted murder charge in count 2?”

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

FIELDS

J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified

[2] We refer to some witnesses by their first names for clarity due to shared last names and/or to preserve their anonymity (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)). No disrespect is intended.