People v. Deleon CA6

Filed 7/8/14 P. v. Deleon CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040255 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F22706)

v. CARLOS ISAAC DELEON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a jury trial, Carlos Deleon (defendant) was found guilty of one count of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in state prison and imposed various fines and fees. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Defendant's appointed counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised. Counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal; that an independent review under Wende was being requested; and that defendant was notified that he could file a supplemental brief with this court. On March 20, 2014, by letter, we notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant has filed a supplemental letter brief in which he asks this court to "reconsider the sentence of 9 years in prison to a

lesser amount of years or even probation supervision." Defendant asserts that he did not intend to hurt the victim, and asks for a chance to "tell [his] side of the story." We will consider defendant's letter brief pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; and we will explain why we have rejected his contentions. (Id. at p. 113.) Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there are no arguable issues on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.) Further, we include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Id. at p. 112.) Facts and Proceedings Below On June 11, 2012, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney filed an information in which defendant was charged with one count of assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).)1 The information contained three allegations: 1) that defendant had previously been convicted of a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); 2) that defendant had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)); and 3) that defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). On November 9, 2012, the court conducted a Marsden hearing. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) After hearing from defendant and defendant's counsel, the court denied defendant's request for new appointed counsel.2 At trial, Juan Escamilla testified that he was the owner of Wilson Tires in Soquel. In May 2012, he lived in an apartment upstairs from the shop. Escamilla said that he had been in a relationship with defendant's mother for about 18 years; he considered