P. v. Sanchez
Filed 9/5/13 P. v. Sanchez CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GILBERT SANCHEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
C072766
(Super. Ct. No. 11F00569)
A jury
found defendant Gilbert Sanchez guilty of assault
with a deadly weapon by a prisoner not serving a life sentence (Pen. Code,
§ 4501; count one) and possession of a sharp instrument by a prisoner
(Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a); count two).
The trial court found that defendant had three prior serious or violent
felony convictions. (Pen. Code,
§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.)
Defendant’s request to strike the prior convictions for purposes of
sentencing was denied. (
v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) He
was sentenced to prison on count one for 25 years to life consecutive to the
term he was then serving. Sentence on
count two was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Defendant was awarded no presentence credit
and was ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) and a
$200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code,
§ 1202.45).
Facts
John Zuber
is a correctional sergeant at California State Prison Sacramento. On July 14,
2010, he was a yard sergeant at the prison’s C facility. Around 11:40 a.m.,
Zuber saw two inmates engaged in an altercation. One of the inmates (later identified as
defendant) was hitting the other (later identified as inmate Jorge Barrera) in
the upper torso area using a stabbing or striking motion. Sergeant Zuber yelled for the inmates to “get
down†and, on his radio, he announced the incident to the observation
tower. The two fighting inmates obeyed
the command.
During the
incident, Sergeant Zuber saw a weapon being used and saw a blue object in
defendant’s hand. Zuber went to the site
of the incident and stepped on the weapon, which was about three feet from
defendant, in order to assure that no other inmate could grab it. Zuber later gave the weapon to Officer Lewis.
The weapon
looked like a toothbrush with its bristles broken off. The object was sharpened at one end.
The victim,
Barrera, had injuries to his back, chest, and the right rear of his head. The chest injury included an abrasion, a
scratch, and active bleeding. The head
injury consisted of a puncture wound and active bleeding.
There were
no visible abrasions or wounds on defendant’s hands or other parts of his
body.
Francisco
Magana, an inmate at the prison, saw the incident. Barrera was his cell mate.
Magana had
been speaking with defendant prior to the incident. He did not see defendant get into an argument
with anyone. Magana did not see
defendant holding a blue sharpened instrument or any other object.
Magana
testified that Barrera was not involved in an altercation with anyone. Magana did not see who attacked Barrera and
did not see any injuries
on him that day.
Defendant
did not testify.
Discussion
We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an
opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the
opening brief. More than 30 days
elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Our review
discloses that the trial court neglected to impose the mandatory $80 court
operations fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and the mandatory $60
court facilities fee (Gov. Code, § 70373) that had been recommended by the
probation department. We shall modify
the judgment to include the mandatory fees.
Having
undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The
judgment is modified to impose an $80 court operations fee and a $60 court
facilities fee. As so modified, the
judgment is affirmed. The trial court is
directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified
copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
HULL ,
J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
BUTZ ,
J.
