People v. Suarez CA2/4

Filed 10/29/13 P. v. Suarez CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B240911

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA068584) v.

NEWTON SUAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Beverly Reid O‘Connell, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and David F. Glassman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Newton Suarez appeals from the judgment convicting him of multiple crimes, including sentence enhancements. The sentence was imposed, in part, under Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) to (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) to (d), collectively, the 1 ―Three Strikes‖ law. The appeal raises a single claim: the trial court abused its discretion under section 1385 by failing to strike one or both of the qualifying prior convictions alleged and proved under this law. We find no abuse of discretion, and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PRODCEDURAL SUMMARY Since the section 1385 issue is the only claim on appeal, our discussion of the factual and procedural record will be brief. The charges in this case grew out of a violent physical confrontation between appellant and Rachel R., the woman with whom he was living. The charging pleading accused appellant of attempted murder (§ 187/664; count 1), criminal threats (§ 422; count 2), obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 4), corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5; count 5), dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1); count 6) and violating a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1); count 7.) He also was charged with infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (c)) and use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022.2, subd. (b)(1)). Finally, he was charged with several enhancements as well as the Three Strikes law allegations, based on prior criminal activity. He was convicted by jury trial on all but the first two counts. He waived jury trial on the prior conviction allegations, and these were found true by the trial court. An aggregate sentence of 64 years to life was imposed for these crimes and enhancements. As we have noted, no issue is raised on appeal with respect to any of these results and punishments, other than application of the Three Strikes law, which we shall discuss. The evidence showed that appellant was living with Rachel and her three children. He and Rachel were home on September 13, 2010, when an argument ensued after