People v. Olaiz CA4/3

Filed 3/12/15 P. v. Olaiz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G049917

v. (Super. Ct. No. 07WF2345)

JOE ANTHONY OLAIZ, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, M. Marc Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. John N. Aquilina, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury found defendant Joe Anthony Olaiz, Jr., guilty of: assault with a firearm, with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(2), 12022.5, subd. (a)); possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351); possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); and possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant then admitted various prior conviction allegations (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 11370.2, subd. (a)), based on his April 18, 1997, April 25, 2001, and April 26, 2004 convictions for separate violations of Health and Safety Code section 11378, and for which he served separate terms in prison. The court sentenced defendant to 17 years and 8 months in prison. This timely appeal followed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant. He filed a brief which set forth the facts and the procedural history of the case. He did not argue against defendant, but advised he had not found any issues to argue on his behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) However, he suggested five issues to assist us in our independent review of the record, as set out below. We notified defendant he could file written argument on his own behalf, but the period to do so has passed and we received no communication from him. We reviewed the entire record according to our obligations under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 485 U.S. 738, and we considered all of the issues suggested by counsel, but we found no arguable issues on appeal. FACTS On September 9, 2007, defendant entered a motel room with a gun. The room occupant, Falicia Stevenson, attempted to flee, tripped and fell, and a struggle ensued. During the struggle defendant’s gun fired twice and struck Stevenson in the leg and thigh.