People v. Chinchilla CA4/3

Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Chinchilla CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048245

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08CF3485)

BYRON CHRISTOPHER CHINCHILLA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Frank F. Fasel, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Byron Christopher Chinchilla on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised the following two questions: (1) Was Chinchilla’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated when trial counsel waived his own personal presence for the resentencing hearing, instead of appearing by telephone; and (2) was Chinchilla’s right to be present at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him violated by trial counsel’s waiver of Chinchilla’s presence. We granted Chinchilla 30 days to file a supplemental brief. That time has passed, and he did not file a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the information counsel provided, and we have independently examined the record. We found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed. FACTS A jury convicted Chinchilla of four counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a))1 (counts 1-4), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246) (count 5), four counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)) (counts 6-9), second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) (count 11), street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)) (count 12), being an active participant in a criminal street gang and having a concealed firearm in the vehicle (§ 12025, subds. (a)(1) & (b)(3)) (count 13), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) (count 14). The jury also found true street terrorism and firearm enhancements (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (e)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)).