Filed 1/29/18 P. v. Reyes-Toledo CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSE MANUEL REYES-TOLEDO,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
G054964
(Super. Ct. No. 16NF2356)
O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed.
Kevin J. Lindsley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
A jury convicted Jose Manuel Reyes-Toledo of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a); all statutory citations are to the Penal Code), and felony vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)). Reyes-Toledo appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).[1] Reyes-Toledo did not file a supplemental brief. Because our review of the record discloses no arguable issues, we affirm the judgment.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Y.S. testified she lived in Anaheim with three of her children. She rented a room to Reyes-Toledo beginning August 6, 2016. Soon after he moved in, Reyes-Toledo began smoking, which irritated her lungs, and walked around shirtless. He also wore an ammunition belt or bandoleer containing imitation bullets. Y.S. told him he would have to leave and she would return his rent money.
Approximately two days after the conversation, Reyes-Toledo pointed a piece of wood at her. The board had a drawing of an assault rifle on one side, and a drawing of a shotgun on the other. He stated he had done bad things in Mexico and he was not afraid of the police. Y.S. was frightened, but did not call police. On two occasions after this incident, Reyes-Toledo attempted to hug Y.S. without her permission, but she pulled away.
On August 15, Y.S. phoned the police because Reyes-Toledo was drinking beer outside without a shirt. The next day, Y.S.’s adult son Carlos served Reyes-Toledo with a three-day eviction notice.
Carlos testified that a week after he served the eviction notice, Reyes-Toledo banged on the front door, demanded his money back, and urinated on the front porch. Y.S. called the police, but when officers arrived, Reyes-Toledo had departed. About two hours later, Reyes-Toledo returned, banged on the door, and again urinated on the front porch. Reyes-Toledo then went into his room. Carlos heard banging and observed Reyes-Toledo pushing against the wall connecting the family room with the rental room. Carlos stated “the wall was about to come down.” Officers arrived within minutes and saw Reyes-Toledo kicking at the door or wall. The rental room looked like it “had been destroyed.” Y.S. testified she paid a company $1,500 to fix the damage.
Y.S. described the prior incidents to an officer. She stated Reyes-Toledo held the board like a gun, pointed it in her direction, told her he had killed people in Mexico, was not afraid of the police, and she would “regret this.” Reyes-Toledo hugged her against her will on three occasions. The officer stated Y.S. appeared frightened as she related the incidents. The court admitted into evidence photographs of the piece of wood and others showing the damage to the room.
The jury convicted Reyes-Toledo as noted above. In April 2017, the trial denied Reyes-Toledo’s motion to reduce the criminal threats conviction to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b)), suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Reyes-Toledo on probation on various terms and conditions, including 365 days in county jail. The court imposed various fines and fees,[2] and issued a protective order.
II
DISCUSSION
Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. To assist the court in its review, counsel identified a possible issue for our consideration: whether the convictions were supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed the entire record under the guidelines of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the matter identified by counsel, and have not identified any arguable issues that would result in a disposition more favorable to Reyes-Toledo.
The judgment is affirmed.
ARONSON, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’LEARY, P. J.
FYBEL, J.
[1] Counsel filed a declaration stating he thoroughly reviewed the record in the case, and he advised Reyes-Toledo he was filing a brief under the procedures outlined in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. He provided Reyes-Toledo with a copy of this brief and was making the appellate record available to him. Counsel advised Reyes-Toledo he could personally file a supplemental brief raising any issues Reyes-Toledo deemed appropriate, and that he could request he withdraw as Reyes-Toledo’s counsel on appeal.
[2] On the record, the court imposed a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) of $240. The court’s minutes reflect imposition of a $300 fine. The minimum restitution fine at the time of the offenses in August 2016, sentencing in April 2017, and currently is $300. (See § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1) and former versions eff. Jan. 1, 2017 to Dec. 31, 2017, and eff. June 27, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2016].) The clerk’s minutes reflect the correct fine.
