P.v . Daniels
Filed 8/29/07 P.v . Daniels CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEON JEROME DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B194576 (Super. Ct. No. F374330) (San Luis Obispo County) |
Leon Jerome Daniels appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of felony assault (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(1)) and street terrorism ( 186.22, subd. (a)).[1] The jury found true a gang enhancement ( 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and a personal infliction of great bodily injury enhancement ( 12022.7, subd. (a)).
Appellant was denied probation and sentenced to a term of six years, consisting of the midterm of three years for the felony assault and the midterm of three years for the personal infliction of great bodily injury enhancement. The court also sentenced him to 10 years on the gang enhancement, and then struck that punishment pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (g) in the interest of justice, finding he was extremely young, that this was his first venture into the adult system, and that a 16-year sentence was too severe for the facts of the case. As to street terrorism, the court sentenced him to two years, to be served concurrently with count 1. The court awarded no credits as appellant had been serving a juvenile sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Shortly after midnight on May 25, 2005, appellant assaulted Frederick Morris while they were both wards at the California Youth Authority in Paso Robles (CYA). At the time of the assault, Morris was on or near his bunk bed. Morris suffered a bilateral fracture of his jaw. When officers arrived to break up the fight, appellant lay down on the ground and put his hands behind his back.
In a taped interview with a CYA investigator, appellant admitted he belonged to a street gang and the Respected Blacks CYA gang. The prosecution presented evidence, including testimony from Morris, that appellant had asked Morris to join the Respected Blacks gang, and threatened violence if he did not join.
Appellant said in the taped interview played to the jury that he fought Morris because he believed Morris had assaulted him a couple of days before, but Morris was not disciplined for the assault. Morris testified he saw another ward strike appellant on that occasion.
The prosecution presented a gang expert who testified appellant told him he was in a gang, that Morris was not in a gang, and appellant was trying to recruit Morris into the Respected Blacks. The expert testified the assault was for the benefit of his gang.
According to two defense witnesses who were housed with appellant and Morris at the CYA, other wards knew that appellant was going to fight Morris. They testified that on the night of the fight, appellant went to Morris's bed and told him to get up so they could fight. Morris got out of bed and the two boys fought. Both Morris and appellant threw punches and Morris kicked appellant.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On June 27, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. On July 26, 2007, we received a supplemental letter brief from appellant contending that the prosecution withheld evidence and tampered with the evidence, and trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to call a character witness to testify on appellant's behalf.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
COFFEE, J.
Dodie A. Harman, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Lisa M.J. Spillman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
