People v. Love CA3

Filed 12/29/25 P. v. Love CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102177

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2302450)

v.

ANTHONY ELTON LOVE, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Anthony Elton Love, Jr. asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising ineffective assistance of appellate and trial counsel that lacks merit. And finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to him, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of the underlying offenses come from the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department report, which was the factual basis for the plea. One of the victims, D.C., heard defendant and a woman arguing outside a motel room. When D.C. went outside, he saw defendant push the woman against D.C.’s car. D.C. told defendant to get away

1

from his car and defendant punched him in the face, which knocked D.C. to the ground. While D.C. was on the ground, defendant continued to punch and stomp D.C. Two witnesses called the police. When the police arrived, D.C. had a small laceration on his face and was taken to the hospital for a concussion. Defendant confronted one of the witnesses as the witness was calling the police. Defendant ripped the witness’s phone out his hand, threw it on the ground, and stomped on it. When police contacted the woman involved in the argument with defendant, she had a bloody lip and was heavily intoxicated. In November 2023, the People charged defendant with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)),1 with an allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)); and robbery (§ 211). The People further alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subd. (b)-(j)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and several circumstances in aggravation (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)-(b)). Defendant pled no contest to all the charges and admitted the great bodily injury allegation, the prior strike allegation, and the aggravating circumstances. In exchange, the trial court dismissed the prior serious felony enhancements and a second case that is not part of this appeal. The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 14 year and 4 months, per the parties’ stipulated plea agreement. The stipulated sentence consisted of an 11 year principal term on the assault count (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), the upper term of four years, doubled due to the prior strike conviction (§ 667, subd. (b)-(j)), plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court imposed a one year, four month consecutive subordinate term on the dissuading a witness count (§ 136.1,