People v. Garcia CA3

Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Garcia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yolo)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C079044

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF151421)

JOSE JESUS GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Jesus Garcia asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Our review of the record identified a necessary correction to the abstract of judgment. However, finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I Defendant entered a drug store in Woodland on March 9, 2015. He went behind the checkout counter, pushed aside the clerk who told him he could not be there, and took cigarettes. When the clerk attempted to stop defendant again, defendant pushed the clerk

1

a second time and left the store. The manager tried to stop defendant but defendant assumed a threatening stance. The clerk and the manager feared for their safety. Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of three years in state prison and the dismissal of allegations that he served two prior prison terms. It was further agreed that the plea would be grounds to terminate probation as unsuccessful, but with no further time, in various misdemeanor cases. (Case Nos. CR145732, CR144788, CR142770, and CR123468.) At sentencing, defense counsel requested that the trial court impose the minimum fees and fines and not impose attorney’s fees. When the trail court asked defense counsel if defendant was interested in a Penal Code section 1203.096 (substance abuse program) referral, defendant responded, “Not unless it is going to help my time.” Defendant said he was a state certified firefighter and he planned to return to that. The trial court allowed defendant to further address the court regarding sentencing. Defendant said at the time of his arrest, he was hearing 16 voices in his head. They told him he was the new general, that he owned it, he claimed it, and he earned it. Based on those voices, defendant said he was not guilty because those voices told him that he owned the cigarettes he took. Defendant complained that defense counsel never asked him about his motive in committing the crime. Defendant said he accepted the plea bargain because if he did not take the three years, he faced seven years. Defense counsel attempted to interrupt and suggest that defendant discuss his concerns at a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. But defendant continued, claiming he had asked for a “better deal” than seven years and he was offered three years. When the trial court asked defendant what he wanted to do, defendant said he wanted to make his statement for the record and have an appellate court look at it.