California Court of Appeal Sep 8, 2023 No. E079582Unpublished
Filed 9/8/23 P. v. Hyatt CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E079582
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2001236)
JASON ROBERT HYATT, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Bernard Schwartz, Judge.
Affirmed.
Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
A jury convicted Jason Robert Hyatt of willfully inflicting corporal injury on the
mother of his child (Jane Doe). Hyatt also admitted two prior strike offenses. We
appointed counsel to represent Hyatt on appeal, and counsel filed a brief under People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,
asking us to conduct an independent review of the record. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 2020, police responded to a 911 call at Hyatt’s home. Hyatt’s mother
Hyatt 1,336 days of custody credit, consisting of 668 days actually served and 668 days
1 Counsel’s Wende brief erroneously states that Hyatt admitted one prior strike and that the court dismissed the other prior strike allegation. The court sentenced Hyatt in this case as part of a “global disposition” that involved a number of other pending cases against him. At the sentencing hearing, the court took Hyatt’s guilty pleas and admissions on those other cases. In one of those cases, Hyatt admitted one prior strike, and the court dismissed the second prior strike allegation.
3
of conduct credit. It also imposed fees of $70 (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code,
§ 70373, subd. (a)(1)), a victim restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), and a
parole revocation restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)), but the court stayed all
of those fines and fees.
DISCUSSION
Counsel’s Wende brief identified six potential arguable issues: (1) whether there
was sufficient evidence to support Hyatt’s conviction; (2) whether Doe’s trial testimony
was so incoherent that Hyatt was effectively denied his Sixth Amendment right of
confrontation; (3) whether the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the
uncharged October 2019 incident between Hyatt and Doe; (4) whether the court abused
its discretion by admitting photos of Doe’s injuries that may not have been caused by
Hyatt; (5) whether the court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Hyatt’s
witness dissuasion or the protective order prohibiting him from contacting Doe; and
(6) whether the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof in closing argument
and, if so, whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object. We advised
Hyatt that he had 30 days to file any personal supplemental brief. We received no
response.
We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to Hyatt. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
118-119; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Accordingly, we affirm the