People v. Alexandre CA4/1

Filed 6/21/21 P. v. Alexandre CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078457

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD236372)

ANTHONY ALEXANDRE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed. Anthony Alexandre, in pro. per.; and Matthew R. Garcia, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2016, Anthony Alexandre was convicted by a jury of corporal injury

to a roommate (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)); stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)); false imprisonment by violence and menace (§§ 236 & 237); and attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also found Alexandre had

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subds. (a) & (e)). Alexandre was sentenced to a determinate term of seven years four months in prison. In 2020, Alexandre filed a petition to vacate his conviction under

section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(2).2 The trial court denied the petition. The court found Alexandre, who was then in federal custody, was on state parole, and thus, not eligible for relief under the statute. The court also found the petition did not contain any evidence of actual innocence as required by the statute even if Alexandre was not in constructive custody. Alexandre filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Alexandre the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his submission later in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merit of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred by denying Alexandre’s motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7? Alexandre filed a supplemental brief in this appeal. The record of the prior trial is not before us, but he complains the original trial was improper.