People v. Bejar CA4/3

Filed 2/5/25 P. v. Bejar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063185

v. (Super. Ct. No. 23HF1051)

ALEJANDRO AMBRIZ BEJAR, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Heather

B. Arambarri and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Alejandro Ambriz Bejar appeals from an order denying his motion for a finding of factual innocence. The hearing on the motion was electronically recorded, but the recording equipment failed to pick up all of the trial judge’s comments. Bejar contends the incomplete transcript of the hearing violated his federal and state constitutional right to an adequate record. We conclude Bejar has not met his burden of showing the record is inadequate for meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm. RELEVANT FACTS On June 7, 2023, the Orange County District Attorney filed a felony complaint against Bejar alleging that on May 24, Bejar committed (1) assault with a deadly weapon, (2) battery with serious bodily injury, and (3) brandishing a deadly weapon. On August 4, before the preliminary hearing, the district attorney moved to dismiss the case. The motion was granted and the case closed. Subsequently, on August 15, Bejar moved for a finding of factual innocence. The hearing on the motion was held August 29. With defense counsel’s agreement, the hearing was recorded electronically. The minutes indicated “[t]he recording equipment is functioning normally,” but the transcript shows the recording equipment did not pick up all of the trial judge’s comments. Following the hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Bejar appealed.