People v. Franco CA3

Filed 12/9/21 P. v. Franco CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093608

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19CF05068)

v.

FRANCISCO MANUEL FRANCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Francisco Manuel Franco 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 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, 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, 124.)

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

The description of the facts is based on the probation report, to which the parties stipulated as the basis for the plea. Defendant went into a liquor store, placed a can of beer down his pants, and tried to leave the store. Christopher H. stood in defendant’s path. Defendant grabbed a bottle of alcohol from the store inventory and repeatedly threatened to kill Christopher. Defendant broke the bottle and tried to stab Christopher multiple times. Christopher suffered several cuts before he left the store. Defendant followed Christopher out of the store, and several customers detained defendant on the ground before the police arrived.

The prosecutor filed a felony complaint. On the date scheduled for a preliminary hearing, the trial court declared a doubt as to defendant’s competency, appointed an expert, ordered an examination pursuant to Penal Code section 1368 (unspecified statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code) and suspended criminal proceedings. Dr. Daisy Switzer evaluated defendant and filed her report with the trial court. The parties submitted the issue on the report. The trial court found defendant was not competent to stand trial and ordered defendant committed to the California Department of State Hospitals. Several months later, pursuant to section 1372, the Medical Director of Atascadero State Hospital certified defendant was competent to stand trial. At the competency hearing, the parties submitted the matter on the report. The trial court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated the criminal proceedings. The People filed an amended felony complaint charging defendant with second degree robbery, a violent felony (§§ 211, 667.5, subd. (c); count 1); assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2); and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 3). The prosecution also alleged as to counts 1 and 3 that defendant used a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The prosecution also alleged