P. v. Alvarado CA6

Filed 4/3/13 P. v. Alvarado CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H038716 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS120776A)

v.

RICARDO RODRIGUEZ ALVARADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

On May 23, 2012, Ricardo Alvarado (defendant) pleaded no contest to one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (a)(4), 12022.7, subd. (a)). On August 17, 2012, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison consisting of the middle term of three years for the assault and three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court awarded defendant credit for time served of 113 actual days and conduct credits of 16 days.1 The court imposed a $240 restitution fund fine, imposed but suspended a parole revocation fine in the same amount, and imposed $70 in assessments. The court ordered that defendant pay

1 Defendant's conduct credits were limited to 15 percent pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1.

restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined after a restitution hearing. Subsequently, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Defendant's appointed counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende was being requested. On December 19, 2012, we notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. We received a letter from defendant,2 in which he contends, in essence, that the incident that led to his conviction was an accident, not an intentional act, and he did not mean to harm the victim. In addition, he asserts that his sentence was "excessive." Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.) In addition, we have described defendant's contentions. We will explain why we reject them. (Id. at p.113.) Facts3 On April 27, 2012, at approximately 2:30 a.m. William Campbell, a tow truck driver, went to repossess a 2005 Chrysler 300 from a residence on Lohman Street in Salinas. Campbell had been directed by the bank to repossess the vehicle because the payments on the vehicle were delinquent. After hooking up the vehicle to his tow truck, Campbell drove away from Lohman Street and stopped on Russell Road to hook the tow