People v. Barraza CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 2015 No. F068358Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after finding no reasonably arguable issues upon independent review and determining that the defendant's challenge to the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea was not cognizable on appeal due to the lack of a certificate of probable cause.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea.
Whether there are any reasonably arguable factual or legal issues in the record.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Pursuant to section 1237.5, a defendant who does not obtain a certificate of probable cause may not challenge the validity of his or her plea on appeal.”

“Since the court denied Barraza’s request for a certificate of probable cause, his challenge to the court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea is not cognizable on appeal.”

“Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.”

Filed 7/24/15 P. v. Barraza CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F068358 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13902282) v.

FRANCISCO ANTONIO BARRAZA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gregory T. Fain, Judge. John Doyle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Detjen, J.

Appellant Francisco Antonio Barraza pled no contest to attempted murder (count 3/Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a))1 and he admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and a personal use of a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 1, 2013, Magdalena R. and her son, Julian, who was a Bulldog gang member, pulled into a parking spot at the Sunlite Market. Barraza, a Norteño gang member, pulled in next to them in a truck and he and Julian began exchanging words as Magdalena went inside the store. Magdalena heard several shots and returned outside to see that her vehicle had been shot two times and that the truck was leaving the area. On March 10, 2013, officers located Barraza and immediately arrested him. The officers found a .32-caliber revolver during a search of his truck and 11 cartridges of .32-caliber ammunition during a search of Barraza’s room. During a post-custody interview, Barraza stated that he shot at Julian because Barraza is a Norteño gang member and he felt disrespected by him. According to Barraza, when he was coming out of the market Julian asked him, “What’s up dog?” Barraza did not reply. However, when he got into his truck, Barraza shot at Julian five or six times. Barraza also claimed that he was only trying to scare Julian. On March 23, 2013, the district attorney filed a first amended complaint charging Barraza with assault with a firearm (count 1/§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and shooting at an occupied vehicle (count 2/§ 246). Count 1 alleged a personal use of a gun enhancement pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a), and count 2 alleged a personal use of a firearm enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (c); both counts alleged a gang enhancement.

People v. Barraza CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief