People v. Alequin CA5

Filed 11/24/20 P. v. Alequin CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F079263 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF371223) v.

GREGORY ANTHONY ALEQUIN, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Kathryn T. Montejano, Judge. Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 29, 2018, an information was filed charging Gregory Anthony Alequin, Jr. (defendant), with second degree robbery involving the personal use of a deadly weapon and personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 §§ 211, 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a); count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon involving the personal infliction of great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a); count 2). Defendant was alleged to have suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that were also strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)). Count 1, and count 2’s great bodily injury allegation, subsequently were dismissed pursuant to section 995. On April 9, 2019, a jury acquitted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon and the lesser included offense of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), but convicted him of the lesser included offense of misdemeanor simple assault (§ 240). Defendant was placed on summary probation for three years on various terms and conditions, including that he serve 180 days in custody with credit for 180 days served.2 He was ordered to pay state restitution in the amount of $165, an assessment fee of $30, and a court operation fee of $40. He was also ordered to pay a probation revocation restitution fine of $150, which was suspended pending revocation of probation. The court ordered that a three-year criminal protective order issued October 2, 2018, which covered the victim, be modified to include the location of the offense. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.