California Court of Appeal May 21, 2014 No. E059705Unpublished
Filed 5/21/14 P. v. Reed 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E059705
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1300690)
GUY DAVID REED, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Richard Todd Fields,
Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Guy David Reed guilty of assault by means
of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1);1
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
The jury trial began on July 10, 2013. After the prosecution rested, the trial court
granted defendant’s section 1118.1 motion to dismiss counts 4 and 5. At the conclusion
of trial on July 19, 2013, the jury found defendant guilty of counts 1, 2 and 3. The jury
also found true that during the commission of count 1, defendant personally inflicted
great bodily injury. In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had suffered
three prior prison terms, one prior serious felony conviction, and one prior strike
conviction.
5
On September 6, 2013, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 16
years in state prison with credit of 256 days for time served as follows: the upper term of
eight years for count 1, plus a consecutive three years for the great bodily injury
enhancement, plus a consecutive five years for the prior serious felony conviction; the
upper term of eight years on count 2 and the upper term of six years on count 3 were
stayed pursuant to section 654; and the court struck the three prior prison term
enhancements under section 1385. Defendant appeals from the judgment.
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.
6
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST J.
MILLER J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues.
Issues
Whether there were any arguable issues on appeal following the defendant's conviction for assault, battery, and criminal threats.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.”