People v. Guzman CA5

Filed 5/13/24 P. v. Guzman CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086508 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CMS-4902) v.

FRANCISCO GUZMAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Kathy Ciuffini, Judge. Andrea Keith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

Appellate counsel for defendant Francisco Guzman has filed an opening brief summarizing the pertinent facts and raising no issues but asking this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes a declaration from appellate counsel stating defendant was advised of his right to file a brief of his own with this court. By letter dated March 5, 2024, we also invited defendant to submit additional briefing. Defendant did not file a response. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following our Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On December 8, 2022, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with grand theft (Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (a), a felony; count 1), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), a felony; count 2). On or about January 2, 2023, defendant submitted a request pursuant to section 1381 that he be tried of these charges within 90 days. After there was disagreement between the parties about when a request had been made and received by the district attorney’s office, the parties stipulated that the 90-day period specified in section 1381 would begin to run from January 3, 2023. On February 10, 2023, a hearing was held pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. Outside the presence of the prosecution, defendant expressed his concerns that defense counsel had not adequately pursued questions about the timing of the section 1381 notice, as well as seeking discovery from the prosecution. Defense counsel responded to these concerns expressed by defendant explaining what he had reviewed and obtained from both defendant and the prosecution as discovery. After seeking