People v. Rosslyn CA3

Filed 2/3/16 P. v. Rosslyn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079231

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F7983)

v.

LEONARD CHARLES ROSSLYN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Leonard Charles Rosslyn has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

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, 124.)

1

During the evening of December 8, 2013, Eva Sandoval was home inside her apartment when she heard a man outside screaming about his dog. Sandoval looked out her window and saw defendant. She soon heard banging on cars and she opened her door halfway. Defendant walked toward Sandoval asking about his dog. Defendant then moved more aggressively toward her with a knife in his hand, the blade extended below defendant’s fist. Defendant pushed up against her door, and Sandoval slammed it closed. Defendant used the knife to stab her front door, leaving knife marks in the door. The police arrived shortly thereafter. When the police arrived, they searched defendant and found a knife in the right pocket of his jacket. The knife was locked in the open position with the blade extending and visible. The officers arrested defendant. The People charged defendant with carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310),1 exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)), and attempted unauthorized entry of an occupied dwelling house or apartment (§ 602.5, subd. (b)). The People further alleged defendant was previously convicted of a serious or violent felony (§ 1170.12) and previously served a term in prison (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Criminal proceedings were briefly suspended to determine defendant’s competency to stand trial, but were reinstated after two doctors found him competent. Before trial, the court heard and denied two motions by defendant to replace appointed counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. At trial, defendant exercised his right not to testify and defense counsel argued there was insufficient evidence the knife was in an open and locked position, or that it was in a position to be readily used as a weapon. The jury found defendant guilty of carrying a dirk or dagger and exhibiting a deadly weapon. The jury acquitted defendant