People v. Trujillo CA3

Filed 2/17/16 P. v. Trujillo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C077510

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13F02230)

PATRICK TRUJILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Patrick Trujillo 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm defendant’s conviction. However, we must remand the matter to the trial court to (1) specify the minimum mandatory fees, fines, penalties, and assessments imposed and (2) amend the abstract of judgment to include the amounts and statutory bases for all fines, fees, penalties, and assessments imposed.

1

I Summary of Facts and Procedural History 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.) Defendant was charged by amended information with failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.018--count one) and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)--count two).1 The amended information alleged defendant served six prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and incurred two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c). (§§ 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Pursuant to defendant’s plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the trial court appointed two doctors to determine defendant’s competency to stand trial. Over the course of the criminal proceedings, defendant filed a Pitchess2 motion seeking discovery of law enforcement officers’ personnel records, and two separate motions to substitute counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). After conducting an in camera examination of the Pitchess materials, the trial court denied defendant’s motion. After conducting in camera hearings as to each Marsden motion, the trial court found there was no showing of inadequate representation. The trial court heard and denied defendant’s motions to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5) and exclude his prior statements due to an alleged violation of his Miranda3 rights.