People v. Mendoza CA5

Filed 3/5/25 P. v. Mendoza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088100 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F23907842) v.

FRANKIE JOSEPH MENDOZA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Noelle Pebet, Commissioner. Heather E. Shallenberger, 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Frankie Joseph Mendoza pleaded no contest to felony criminal threats, and admitted a firearm enhancement and prior conviction allegations. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. We affirm. FACTS1 In October 2023, the victim lived in a two-level apartment with her four minor children. Appellant and the victim’s father also stayed at the apartment. Appellant and the victim had been in dating relationship for four years; he was not the father of her children. On the afternoon of October 24, 2023, the victim was at her apartment with appellant and the victim’s two daughters; the victim’s father was not there. The victim and appellant were upstairs when he suddenly accused her of sleeping with other men in the apartment complex so she could taunt him. Appellant asked her: “ ‘You think I’m stupid? You think I don’t know?’ ” The victim replied that he was “crazy.” Appellant became more aggravated as the victim continued to deny appellant’s accusations. Appellant pulled a handgun from his pocket, stood within an arm’s reach of the victim, and moved the gun around as if he was going to hit her with it. Appellant was yelling that he was going to shoot her, and he would kill her if she did not “stop playing dumb.” The victim testified she was very scared. The victim testified she had seen the gun the previous day, when appellant showed it to her and said he had just obtained the weapon. Appellant told her the gun was a