People v. Medeiros CA3

Filed 10/6/21 P. v. Medeiros CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C091316

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE003991)

v.

JULIAN FRANKLIN MEDEIROS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Julian Franklin Medeiros has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment. 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, 123-124.)

1

BACKGROUND In February 2018, then 15-year-old N.M. posted two pairs of size nine Nike Jordan shoes (a black and red pair and a black and gold pair) for sale on the application “LetGo.” A person named Tony Azarello contacted N.M. through the application and they agreed on a price. They exchanged cell phone numbers through the application and began texting each other, arranging to meet at a park to complete the sale. The name associated with the cell phone texting with N.M. was Karina Lozano. When N.M. arrived at the park, he saw a white Lexus. Defendant was the driver and a woman was seated in the front passenger seat. Defendant and the woman asked to see the shoes and N.M. handed them into the car. Defendant pulled out some money, asked the woman for some money, and then drove off without paying N.M. for the shoes. N.M. called 911 to report the theft. Earlier that day, T.W. had posted her iPhone for sale for $500 on the LetGo application. A person named Tony Azarello contacted her through the application and they exchanged phone numbers. The name associated with the phone number Azarello used was a “number from a Katrina.” T.W. and Azarello agreed to meet at a grocery store parking lot. About five minutes after T.W. arrived, the buyer arrived in a white car and parked next to T.W.’s car. Defendant was the driver, and there was a woman in the passenger seat. Defendant asked if he could check the phone and she handed it to him. He turned the phone on, tossed it to the woman, and reversed out of the parking spot without paying T.W. T.W. stepped in front of the vehicle, yelling, “Stop. Stop.” She was about 10 feet in front of the car to the side, nearest to the headlight “on the right side.” A few seconds later, the car hit her. She felt sharp, shooting pain in her hip and thigh, and dull, aching pain in her abdomen. T.W. called 911 to report the incident. She had bruising on her leg for six weeks and pain for approximately six months. She later identified defendant in a photographic lineup.