People v. Garcia CA3

Filed 5/27/21 P. v. Garcia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092565

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CR-001380)

v.

JOHN PETER GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Peter Garcia 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.) Our review of the record has found sentencing errors, which we will modify the judgment to correct. Finding no other arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count I),1 mayhem (§ 203; count II), battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count III), and misdemeanor battery (§ 242; count IV). The prosecution also alleged defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) as to the assault count. Defendant pleaded guilty to the assault count and admitted the great bodily injury allegation for dismissal of the remaining counts. The parties stipulated the factual basis for the plea was provided in Tehama County Sheriff’s Department case No. 20-00994. The trial court imposed a seven-year sentence in state prison, then suspended execution of the sentence and placed defendant on a five-year probation term. The terms of defendant’s probation included service of 180 days in county jail. The court also ordered defendant to pay fines and assessments as set forth in the probation order, which included a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $600 probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), which was “to be stayed upon successful completion of probation,” a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant timely appealed without a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30