People v. Cooks CA5

Filed 12/19/24 P. v. Cooks 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088133 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F23905971) v.

HERMAN JOSEPH COOKS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Ryan I. Wells, Judge. William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

Appellant and defendant Herman Joseph Cooks appeals from a final judgment following a no contest plea that disposed of all issues between the parties. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (a).)1 Counsel for appellant filed an opening brief summarizing the pertinent facts and raising no issues, but asking this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes a declaration from counsel stating appellant was advised of his right to file a brief of his own with this court. By letter dated October 9, 2024, we also invited appellant to submit additional briefing within 30 days. Appellant did not file a response. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant. Therefore, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The probation report reflects that on August 10, 2023, appellant, then 19 years old, confronted his ex-girlfriend at her grandmother’s house. He accused her of talking to other men, took her cell phone, punched her in the stomach, and threatened to “‘beat [her] ass.’” The victim sustained a large scratch on one arm, and surveillance camera footage reflected appellant also grabbed her by the hair and pulled her toward the road. Additionally, appellant punched the victim’s car, causing $100 in damage. The victim requested and was issued an emergency protective order by responding officers. Several hours later, police responded to another domestic disturbance at a different location. The victim reported appellant texted her friend, M.M., and threatened to stab M.M. and M.M.’s brother. Appellant then showed up and entered the victim’s car. She advised him of the protective order, but he refused to exit the car, argued with the victim,