People v. Reed CA5

Filed 12/18/24 P. v. Reed 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088039 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF398368) v.

JIMMY LEE REED, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Nathan G. Leedy, Judge. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.

Appellant Jimmy Lee Reed is represented in this appeal by appointed counsel Rex Adam Williams. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Williams filed a brief that raised no arguable issues and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Counsel’s opening brief set forth the case’s relevant facts. On September 24, 2024, appellant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. To date, we have received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment. As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, the following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In a previous appeal, we explained the factual bases for appellant’s convictions. Appellant’s counsel adopts that factual recitation in his opening brief, and we do the same. As explained in the previous appeal:

“On May 21, 2020, defendant and his ex-girlfriend K.H. were texting while K.H. was getting gas at a local gas station. K.H. testified that she and defendant were an ‘on-again, off again’ couple and that she had agreed that they might “hang out” together that night, even though they both were currently dating other people. As K.H. was pumping gas, defendant arrived at the gas station. Defendant and K.H. began to argue. K.H. testified that she was going to leave, but defendant insisted that she give him a ride. K.H. eventually relented, and the two left the gas station in K.H.’s car. K.H. and defendant quickly began arguing about his new girlfriend and how his new girlfriend had been hit by her old boyfriend. When K.H. said that defendant used force against her (just about everything short of using his fist), defendant denied that he had done so and said, ‘[T]his is what it is like for me to hit you.’ Defendant then started punching and choking K.H. K.H. estimated that defendant punched her about five times. K.H. was struggling to drive while defendant was attacking her. K.H. began seeing white and tried to claw at defendant’s face with her left hand. Defendant ‘let up’ on his assault, and K.H. ‘slammed’ on the brakes. Defendant then told K.H. that he would bury K.H. with Armando, a recently deceased boyfriend. Defendant punched and began choking K.H. again. K.H. testified that she again began to see white and spots, and she