People v. Pulizzano CA3

Filed 8/17/20 P. v. Pulizzano CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090206

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR95990)

v.

JAMES JOSEPH PULIZZANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant James Joseph Pulizzano filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 192, subd. (a)—count I),1 attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)—count II), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)—count III), two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)—counts IV & V), and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)—count VI). For counts I, IV, V, and VI, the jury found defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subds. (a) & (d)); for count II, the jury found defendant personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 29 years four months in prison. The court imposed the midterm of seven years on the attempted murder conviction (count II) plus a consecutive term of 20 years for the attached firearm enhancement. The court also imposed a consecutive term of one year for the attempted voluntary manslaughter conviction (count I) plus one year four months for the attached firearm enhancement. For count III, the court imposed a concurrent term of two years. For count VI, the court imposed a concurrent term of six years, and imposed and stayed the terms for counts IV and V under section 654. The court imposed a $400 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), an identical $400 parole revocation restitution fine, which was stayed pending revocation of parole, a $240 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $180 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant was awarded 309 days of presentence credit (269 days actual custody and 40 days of conduct credit). Defendant appealed his convictions, and we affirmed the judgment in an unpublished decision in People v. Pulizzano, case No. C082795, in February 2019, although we remanded for the trial court to decide whether to exercise its newly granted