People v. Vasquez CA5

Filed 3/4/26 P. v. Vasquez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089965 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. PCF463436, v. PCF437096)

VICTOR ROMERO VASQUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Ricky Tripp, Judge. Sara E. Coppin, 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., Meehan, J. and Harrell, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Victor Romero Vasquez appealed, with a certificate of probable cause, from a final judgment following a no contest plea that disposed of all issues between the parties. (Pen. Code, §§ 1237, 1237.5.)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 December 4, 2025, this court 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 (Kelly), 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. BACKGROUND In March 2022, the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department received a report of an assault at a residence identifying appellant as the suspect.2 Responding deputies were informed appellant entered the residence and physically assaulted two people. He then drew a firearm and threatened to shoot the victims. One of the victims reported he was having issues with appellant and this was the third time appellant had assaulted him. In January 2023, in Tulare Superior Court case No. PCF437096, appellant was charged by criminal complaint with two counts of assault with a firearm, making criminal

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 We include a brief summary of the facts from the probation report, which was based from law enforcement reports, only for general background. Appellant entered his plea pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 (West). (In re Alvernaz (1992) 2 Cal.4th 924, 932 [characterizing a West plea as a “plea of nolo contendere, not admitting a factual basis for the plea”].)