Filed 9/1/20 P. v. Lopez CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ARNOLD NAJERA LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B297547

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. YA098163)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Affirmed. 

Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________
2

Arnold Najera Lopez brandished a replica gun and 

assaulted a youth during separate confrontations. He was 

subsequently convicted of four misdemeanor counts based on 

these incidents and placed on probation. No arguable issues have 

been identified following review of the record by Lopez’s

appointed appellate counsel or our own independent review. We 

affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Lopez was charged in an information with assault with a 

deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)), assault by means 

of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, 

subd. (a)(4)) and two counts of brandishing a replica gun (Pen. 

Code, § 417.4). 

According to the evidence at trial, after the end of the high 

school day, Lopez insulted Carlos G. and pointed a replica gun at 

him.

1 Lopez and Carlos then engaged in a fistfight. When the 

fight was over, Lopez again pointed the gun at Carlos, who 

thought it was real.

The following morning Carlos, Wendy S. and several other 

students were walking to school when a car pulled up. Lopez got 

out of the passenger side of the car, pointed the replica gun at 

Carlos and spoke to him. Frightened, Carlos began to move away. 

Recognizing the gun was not real, Wendy intervened and spoke to 

Lopez as one of the other students called the police. 

The driver demanded that Lopez return to the car, and he 

complied. Wendy told Lopez to leave, and the two of them 

exchanged blows through the car window. Lopez then used the 

butt of his gun to strike Wendy, causing swelling to her face. As 

the car began to move, Lopez grabbed Wendy’s hand and pulled 

1 Lopez was not a student at the high school.
3

her along with the car for a distance of three to four feet. Wendy 

hit Lopez in the face, and he released her. 

The car drove away from the scene of the incident, but was 

stopped approximately three blocks away by the police, who 

recovered the replica gun from a backpack on the passenger side. 

Lopez volunteered the gun was a replica.

Pedro Pineda, the driver of the car, testified in Lopez’s 

defense. Pineda denied Lopez ever left the car or pointed the 

replica gun at anyone. According to Pineda, Wendy was the 

aggressor and “just went off” on Lopez. Lopez did not testify. 

The jury found Lopez guilty on both counts of brandishing a 

replica gun, not guilty of the two aggravated assault charges, but 

guilty of two lesser included simple assaults (Pen. Code, § 240). 

The trial court placed Lopez on probation for three years on 

condition he serve 30 days in county jail (with credit for time 

served), complete anger management classes and stay away from 

Carlos and Wendy. The court imposed and stayed statutory 

fines, fees and assessments. Lopez filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Lopez on appeal. After 

reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. In a 

notice dated January 15, 2020 we attempted to advise Lopez he 

had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he 

wished us to consider. On January 21, 2020 the notice was 

returned with a notation “Return to sender. Vacant, unable to 

forward.”2

2 When we appointed appellate counsel for Lopez, we 

directed Lopez “to keep the court informed of his/her mailing 

address at all times. If you move, you MUST notify the clerk of 

this court immediately; otherwise you may not receive important 
4

We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate

counsel for Lopez has complied with counsel’s responsibilities and

there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 

259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J. 

FEUER, J. 

notices concerning your appeal.” Lopez has not provided any 

information regarding his current address.