Filed 6/27/24 P. v. Carbajal CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAMON CA RBAJAL

,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B 3 32582

(Super. Ct. No. 2 023003776 )

( Ventura County)

Ramon Carbajal appeals a judgment entered following his

conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (knife) , with findings

concerning arming with a deadly weapon

, victim vulnerability,

and crim inal history. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1) 1 ; Cal. Rules

of Court, rule 4.421(a) & (b) [circumstances in aggravation].)

On May 1, 2023, the prosecutor filed a felony information

charging Carbajal with assaul t with a deadly weapon and

alleging special sentencing allegations. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) ; Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(2 ), ( 3) & (b)(1 )

- ( 5)

. ) Following a jury

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

trial, Carbajal was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and

two special allegations were found true (arming with a deadly

weapon and victim vulnerability). Separately, Carbajal admitted

four special allegations concerning his criminal history.

On October 6 , 202 3

, the trial court sentenced Carbajal to a

midterm three years ’ imprisonme nt. The court imposed a $300

restitution fine and a $300 parole revocation restitution fine

(suspended) and awarded Carbajal 469 days of presentence

custody credit. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.)

E vidence at trial established that D.A., a middle

- schoo l

student, and four of her friends were walking to Starbucks after

school. Carbajal walked behind the girls; he was mumbling and

smelled of marijuana. He held a pocketknife in his hand which

he picked up from the ground.

Carbajal walked closely behind D.A. The other girls ran

away. D.A. began to run when Carbajal waved the knife. She

felt the knife poke her on her back result ing in a scratch.

Starbucks employees saw the incident and summoned police.

We appointed counsel to represent Carbajal in th is appeal.

After counsel’s examination of the record, counsel filed an

opening brief raising no issues.

On April 16, 2024, we advised Carbajal th at he had 30 days

within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that

he wished to raise on appe al. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that

Ca r bajal ’ s attorney has fully complied with his resp onsibilities

and that no arguable issue exists. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3d 436, 441.)3 We affirm th e judgme nt.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

CODY, J.Maureen Houska , Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Ryan Peabody , under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defen dant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.