Filed 3/19/18 P. v. Vigil CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RYAN VIGIL,

Defendant and Appellant.
H044845
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. Nos. C1633666, C1509758,
C1649387)

In April 2015, defendant Ryan Vigil sent a series of threatening text messages to C.S. One of his texts asked “where he could get some ‘unregistered heat,’ ” which C.S. understood to refer to an unregistered firearm. After C.S. reported his threats to the police, defendant called her, asked if she had filed a police report, and made further threats.
Defendant was charged by information with criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422), felony attempted dissuading (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)), and attempted possession of a firearm by a felon (§§ 664, 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and it was further alleged that he had suffered a prior strike and serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12). In 2014, defendant had been convicted of criminal threats for threatening to kill his neighbors.
In October 2016, defendant approached a group of developmentally disabled children at a bus stop and began “shouting that someone had stolen his check.” Defendant shoved an adult who was with the children. He grabbed one child, shoved him while holding onto “his costume,” and then punched him in the middle of his back. Finally, defendant approached a second child and punched him in the back of head. The second child fell to the ground, hit his head, and was knocked unconscious. Defendant fled the scene with a female, who was also shouting about a check being stolen.
Defendant was charged by felony complaint with one count of felony battery causing serious bodily injury (§§ 242, 243, subd. (d)), which was accompanied by a great bodily injury allegation (§§ 667, 1192.7), and two counts of misdemeanor battery (§§ 242, 243, subd. (a)), along with strike and serious felony allegations.
In December 2015, the court declared a doubt under section 1368, suspended the criminal proceedings, and referred defendant for a competency examination. In January 2016, defendant submitted on the competency report, which found him competent, and the court found him competent and reinstated the criminal proceedings. In March 2017, defendant asked the court to replace his trial counsel. The court held a hearing on his request and denied it.
In April 2017, defendant entered into a written plea agreement. He pleaded no contest to the criminal threats and attempted possession counts. The dissuading count was amended to a misdemeanor (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), and the battery case was amended to add an assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) count. Defendant pleaded no contest to both amended counts. He also pleaded no contest to the two misdemeanor battery counts in the 2016 case and admitted the prior conviction allegations in the 2015 case. His pleas and admissions were entered in exchange for an agreed sentence of seven years and eight months in prison. The agreement also stipulated that the remaining counts and allegations would be dismissed, and his probation in a separate case would be terminated.
At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, defendant requested a continuance to communicate with an employer to secure a job for after his release. Defendant had no employment history, still lived with his parents at age 26, and had long suffered from mental health problems. His request was denied. The prosecutor dismissed the strike prior in the 2016 case. The court imposed the agreed sentence, awarded defendant 1236 days of credit against his prison term, and imposed various mandatory fines and fees. The court dismissed any remaining counts and allegations. Defendant timely filed notices of appeal challenging only the post-plea proceedings.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.






_______________________________
Mihara, J.



WE CONCUR:






_____________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.






_____________________________
Premo, J.