P. v. Quintero
Filed 9/3/13 P.
v. Quintero CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Appellant,
v.
VINCENT PAUL QUINTERO,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F065085
(Fresno
Super. Ct. No. F12600295)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. K. Culver Kapetan, Judge.
Deborah
Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant/defendant Vincent Paul
Quintero pleaded no contest in two separate cases to stalking while a court
order was in effect (Pen. Code,
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] § 649.9, subd. (b)) and corporal injury
to a cohabitant with a prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (e)(1)). He committed both offenses against his former
girlfriend. Defendant was sentenced to
two years in state prison. On appeal,
his appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with
citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to
(Wende).) We affirm.
Case No. F12600295
Defendant
and the victim had lived together for five years, and they had two children
together. As of January 2012, they had
been separated for one year because of a domestic violence incident. The court had issued a
against defendant, on behalf of the victim and her children.
At
approximately 5:45 a.m. on January 8, 2012, the victim was asleep in her
bedroom, and woke up to the sound of a door slamming. She looked in the doorway and defendant was
standing there. Defendant accused her of
having a man in her residence. She
picked up her cell phone to call the police.
Defendant grabbed the cell phone from her and continued to repeat the
accusation. When she told him to leave,
defendant choked her and then let her go.
Defendant walked out of the bedroom.
She followed him, told him to leave, and asked for her cell phone. As they reached the front door, defendant
grabbed the victim’s neck and slammed her against the wall. Defendant left with her cell phone.
On February
23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County,
charging defendant with count I, stalking while a court order was in effect
(§ 646.9, subd. (b)); count II, corporal injury to a cohabitant with a
prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (e)(1)); count III, grand theft (§ 487,
subd. (c)); count IV, misdemeanor damage to a wireless communication device
(§ 591.5); count V, misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a dwelling house
(§ 602.5, subd. (a)); and count VI, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic
relations court order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)). (CT 1-2)
A warrant was issued for his arrest.
Case No. F12600406
On March 6,
2012, defendant again went to the victim’s residence. He rang the bell and said they needed to
talk. The victim refused to let him in
and said he needed to leave. Defendant
climbed through a window. She tried to
run away from him, but he pushed her to the floor. Defendant again said he needed to talk to
her. He held her down and refused to let
her get up. She repeatedly tried to get
away from him, but he pinned her down.
They struggled for about 45 minutes.
The victim
told defendant that if he returned her cell phone, which he took during the
prior incident, she would not call the police.
Defendant returned her cell phone.
She quickly ran to the garage and called 911. Defendant left on a bicycle. The victim suffered multiple bruises and
scratches on her body.
On the
night of March 7, 2012, defendant was arrested.
He had fresh scratches on his face.
Defendant was advised of the warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and he initially denied
being at the victim’s house. He then
admitted that he was there, but claimed he just tried to hug the victim, she
punched him, and they fell down.
In case No.
F12600406, defendant was charged with count I, corporal injury to a cohabitant
with a prior conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (e)(1)); count II, first degree
residential burglary (§§ 459, 460); count III, false imprisonment
(§ 236); and count IV, misdemeanor disobeying a domestic relations court order
(§ 273.6, subd. (a)).
Defendant’s plea
On March
13, 2012, defendant pleaded no contest in case No. F12600295, to count I,
stalking while a court order was in effect (§ 646.9, subd. (b)); and in
case No. F12600406, to count I, corporal injury to a cohabitant with a prior
conviction (§ 273.5, subd. (e)(1)).
Defendant entered his pleas with the understanding that the court would
dismiss the remaining charges in both cases, he would be sentenced to no more
than a two-year aggregate term, and he receive concurrent terms.
Sentencing
On April
10, 2012, the court denied probation and imposed the lower term of two years
for corporal injury to a cohabitant (case No. F12600406), and a concurrent
two-year term for stalking while a court order was in effect (case No.
F12600295). Defendant was awarded 70
days of presentence credit. According to
the abstract of judgment, the court imposed the following orders as to each
case: a restitution fine of $240
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); a suspended $240 parole revocation fine
(§ 1202.45); a $40 court security fee; and a $30 criminal conviction
assessment. The court also imposed a
10-year restraining order on behalf of the victim and her children against
defendant (§ 273.5, subd. (i)).
On June 4,
2012, defendant filed a timely notice of
appeal and request for a certificate of probable cause in case No.
F12600295; he did not file an appeal in case No. F12600406. On June 7, 2012, defendant’s request for a
certificate of probable cause was denied.
As noted
filed a Wende brief with this
court. The brief also includes the
declaration of appellate counsel indicating that defendant was advised he could
file his own brief with this court. By
letter on September 13, 2012, we invited defendant to submit additional
briefing. To date, he has not done so.
Defendant
has failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause and therefore cannot
challenge the underlying validity of his plea.
(People v. Panizzon (1996) 13
Cal.4th 68, 77-79.)
After
independent review of the record, we find that no other reasonably arguable
factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
Franson, J.
Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
