People v. Meza CA3

Filed 12/17/15 P. v. Meza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C078830

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR F 13-3769)

v.

JOSE MEZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) BACKGROUND Marcus Goodrum and James Watson were drinking beer with several other people at an apartment in West Sacramento. Another group of friends, including defendant,

1

were also drinking at the same apartment. One of the people in the apartment, “Shaq,” got in a fight with Goodrum. Watson tried to intervene and “Shaq” started beating Watson. Watson’s jaw and nasal bone were each fractured in several places. Witnesses at the scene identified defendant as the primary assailant. Defendant acknowledged he went by the nickname “Shaq,” admitted the apartment was his, and admitted he was there at the time of the fight. Defendant and at least one other person at the apartment were identified as validated gang members in the Broderick Boys, a set of the Norteños. Defendant’s apartment was located in recognized territory of the Broderick Boys street gang.1 Defendant pleaded no contest to assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) -- count 1)2 and participation in a criminal street gang (§186.22, subd. (a) -- count 4), and admitted an enhancement allegation that he had personally inflicted great bodily injury on a person (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court granted the People’s motion to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations. Defendant waived a presentence probation report. The trial court reserved jurisdiction on the issue of direct victim restitution. The trial court did not award defendant presentence custody credits, but asked “the clerk to request a presentence [sic] report for [defendant], which will have a full credit calculation.” The trial court then proceeded to sentence defendant, in accordance with the plea, to four years on the assault conviction, three years consecutive on the enhancement allegation, and eight months consecutive (one-third the midterm) on the participation in a criminal street gang, for an aggregate term of seven years eight months in state prison. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $30 collection fee (§ 1202.4, subd. (l)), a $300