P. v. Williams
Filed 8/28/07 P. v. Williams 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SEAN WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | H030885 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CC594707) |
Defendant Sean Williams appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded guilty to felony charges of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a))[1] and false imprisonment effected by violence, menace, fraud and deceit ( 236-237) and admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury on the victim, Amber Ryman, under circumstances involving domestic violence within the meaning of sections 12022.7, subdivision (e) and 1203, subdivision (e)(3).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[2]
Defendant and Amber Ryman lived together in San Jose. On the evening of June 10, 2005, they spent an evening out together on Santana Row, drinking and socializing with friends. As they drove home, they became involved in a verbal argument which escalated when defendant hit Ryman in the face five to six times. Ryman blacked out; when she regained awareness she was in the bathroom of her home, struggling with defendant as he held her on the floor of the bathtub. When defendant walked into another room, Ryman left the house through the bathroom window and ran to a neighbors home. Defendant appeared and pulled Ryman by her neck and hair back into her house. After half an hour, Ryman escaped from the house a second time and ran into the street, screaming, as defendant chased her. Two girls in a passing car stopped for her, picked her up, and called the police.
Ryman was taken by ambulance to Valley Medical Center. Her injuries included bruising, redness, pain and swelling to her face, a swollen and cut lip, redness, bruising and pain to her left arm, and a cut on her toe. She suffered a fracture to the floor of her eye socket and surgery was required to release pressure on her optic nerve and place a plate in her eye socket. Ryman has only partial vision in her left eye.
Defendant was arrested three days later. He ultimately pleaded guilty to sections 273.5, subdivision (a) and 236-237 and admitted an enhancement pursuant to section 12022.7, subdivision (e). The pleas were entered without conditions and the trial court made no promises as to sentence.
A probation report was submitted to the trial court by Deputy Probation Officer Joseph Trione on August 23, 2006, recommending that defendant be granted probation. However, Trione filed a supplemental report on October 16, 2006, withdrawing the original recommendation of probation and recommending instead that probation be denied and that defendant be committed to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The trial court conducted a formal sentencing hearing which took place over four days. Numerous witnesses testified under oath including defendant, two police officers, the probation officer, defendants father, defendants therapist, and a former girlfriend of defendant. Amber Ryman and several of her relatives and friends made unsworn statements to the court.
The trial court denied probation and committed defendant to the state prison for a term of seven years. Defendant was ordered to pay victim restitution in the sum of $18,938.98.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Duffy, J.
WE CONCUR:
Mihara, Acting P.J.
McAdams, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
[1] Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The facts are taken from the probation report and testimony provided at the preliminary hearing and at sentencing.
