California Court of Appeal Feb 26, 2014 No. E058744Unpublished
Filed 2/26/14 P. v. Navarro CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E058744
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF023049)
MARIO NAVARRO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Albert J. Wojcik, Judge.
Affirmed.
Christian Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After defendant and appellant Mario Navarro’s acquittal on various charges
stemming from an alleged sexual assault, defendant petitioned to have his arrest record
sealed and destroyed and for a finding of factual innocence under Penal Code sections
1
851.8, subdivision (e), and 851.85.1 The trial court denied the petition, and defendant
[his] notes, reviewing the transcript provided, it appears to the Court that that evidence
was reasonable relative to reasonable cause in believing that [defendant] did commit the
crimes. Whether or not it was proof beyond a reasonable doubt, obviously no. In
evaluating the record and the evidence, it might raise a substantial question as to guilt,
but it fails to completely exonerate the defendant.”
On May 1, 2013, we granted defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus to
establish the constructive timely filing of a notice of appeal. On May 8, 2013, defendant
filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his petition for a factual finding of
innocence.
4
II
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the
record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an
independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
RICHLI J.
KING J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition for a finding of factual innocence under Penal Code sections 851.8 and 851.85, finding no arguable issues upon independent review.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's petition for a finding of factual innocence?
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In evaluating the record and the evidence, it might raise a substantial question as to guilt, but it fails to completely exonerate the defendant.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.”