People v. Patron CA5

Filed 12/17/25 P. v. Patron 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089172 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F24901448) v.

D’ANNUNZIO ROMAN GAVIOLA PATRÓN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Charles J. Lee, Judge. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and D’Annunzio Roman Gaviola Patrón, in propria persona, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant D’Annunzio Roman Gaviola Patrón was sentenced to eight years in custody following a plea bargain in which defendant pleaded guilty to one count of violating Penal Code1 section 245, subdivision (a)(4), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. Defendant’s appellate counsel raises no claims of error in briefing here, and requests that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant filed a supplemental letter with the court, alleging that his assigned trial counsel unlawfully recorded him during a meeting, that his counsel avoided a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 by noting a doubt as to competency pursuant to section 1368, and that he was sentenced to “[eight] years flat with half time” instead of a “[four]-year[] double up.” Defendant also asserts that his name is spelled incorrectly on the abstract of judgment and asks that it be corrected. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The complaint in this matter alleged that, on or about February 16, 2024, defendant committed an assault on P.E. by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1), as well as battery which did inflict serious bodily injury on P.E. (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2). The complaint also alleged several prior strikes, as well as factors in aggravation. At the date set for preliminary hearing in March 2024, defendant had an “out burst” (sic) in court, and was removed, at which point his counsel noted a doubt as to his competency pursuant to section 1368. In April 2024, the trial court ordered defendant to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to determine defendant’s competency and the necessity of medicating him. At that hearing, defendant requested a Marsden hearing. A Marsden hearing was held immediately, and the court denied defendant’s motion.