Filed 5/16/18 P. v. Varmall 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

TIMOTHY VARMALL,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085306

(Super. Ct. No. 15F01019)




In February 2015, defendant Timothy Varmall admitted to stabbing an acquaintance, Smurti Patel, to death. Defendant met Patel, who had a substance abuse problem and was often homeless, at a Sacramento homeless shelter. Although they did not have a romantic relationship, defendant began to develop feelings for Patel. When defendant told Patel how he felt, she said she was getting back together with a former boyfriend. Defendant was enraged.
Defendant began plotting to kill Patel for rejecting him. In September 2014, he purchased a knife for the purpose of killing her. He carried the knife with him at all times in case an opportunity arose to kill her. On several occasions, defendant saw Patel and pretended to be nice to her so he could gather information on where she was living and the routes she took home.
On the evening of February 9, 2015, defendant followed Patel on a light rail train. Patel noticed him when they got off the train at the same station and said hello. Defendant acted surprised to see her. He told her he was going to visit his brother at a nearby restaurant. Patel said she would accompany him to the restaurant to get something to eat.
As they walked to the restaurant, they passed through an unlit field that was very dark. Defendant pulled out the knife and stabbed Patel in the neck, arm, and chest area multiple times. Patel pleaded for him to stop. Defendant left and threw the knife away in a nearby dumpster. He later retrieved the knife and threw it from the Tower Bridge into the river; the knife was never recovered.
Patel ran to a restaurant for help. A restaurant employee called 911; when asked who had done this to her, Patel said “Tim.” Patel succumbed to her injuries a few days later.
A few days after killing Patel, defendant asked a mutual friend to meet him at a restaurant where he confessed to stabbing her. The friend called police, and defendant waited until he was arrested. Defendant told the officer who arrived on scene that he felt bad because he had gotten away with murder. During a subsequent recorded police interview, which was played during trial, defendant recounted how he had plotted to kill Patel after she rejected him.
Defendant was charged with murder. The information included a deadly weapon enhancement and alleged the special circumstance of lying in wait. The information further alleged that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction and two prior strike convictions.
At trial, in addition to the above evidence, the prosecutor also presented evidence pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), of two prior offenses involving two different women. In 1993, defendant beat and sexually assaulted a woman he barely knew after he perceived she had rejected him. Once he finished, he told the victim to call police, and he waited at the scene to be arrested. He was convicted of sexual penetration with a foreign object with force or violence and forcible oral copulation and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. After he was released from prison, defendant joined a gym and expressed a romantic interest in a fellow gym member. She rebuffed his advances. Defendant later punched the woman in the face, causing her long-lasting injury. Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault with great bodily injury and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Defendant waived a jury trial, and the court found him guilty of murder and found the deadly weapon allegation and the lying in wait, special circumstance true. The court also found the prior serious felony and prior strike allegations true.
The court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the murder while lying in wait offense consecutive to a six-year determinate sentence consisting of five years for the prior serious felony conviction and one year for use of the deadly weapon during the offense. The court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine, a $40 court security fee, and a $30 court facilities assessment. Defendant received 845 days of presentence credit. This appealed followed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


/s/
Robie, J.


We concur:


/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.


/s/
Hoch, J.