Filed 3/24/22 P. v. Mendoza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F082155

(Super. Ct. No. BF169604A)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David R. Zulfa, 

Judge.

C. Athena Roussos, 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 Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.
2.

Appointed counsel for defendant José Mendoza asked this court to review the 

record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief 

within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. 

Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On September 1, 2017, defendant stopped his car, pulled a gun, and pointed it at a 

man’s face because the man asked him to slow down in the neighborhood. A neighbor 

intervened and defendant left. After defendant drove away, the man called the sheriff’s 

department. Deputies later found defendant driving the same car and towing a stolen 

trailer. Defendant fled and was arrested. The deputies found a loaded handgun, 

methamphetamine, and “bump” keys for picking locks.

On April 6, 2018, deputies recognized defendant while he was driving another 

vehicle. The deputies attempted to conduct a traffic stop, but defendant fled, accelerating 

up to 100 miles per hour, running a red light, and weaving through traffic. The deputies 

were unable to stop defendant. The next day, defendant arrived at a man’s residence in 

the same vehicle and shot the man three times on the driveway.

On April 9, 2018, deputies went to a trailer park to find defendant. They spotted 

him, but he fled. When they approached, he threatened them physically. Several 

deputies were able to arrest him. Retracing his steps, they found a loaded firearm.

On June 4, 2019, the trial court granted in part defendant’s Pitchess1 motion for 

discovery.

1 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
3.

On June 19, 2020, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s Marsden2 motion 

for substitute counsel.

On June 30, 2020, the Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with 

19 counts in a consolidated and amended information.

On September 21, 2020, defendant pled no contest to the following four counts in 

return for a stipulated 21-year sentence: attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; 

count 1), resisting an officer (§ 69; count 7), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, 

subd. (b); count 13), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); 

count 15).

On December 8, 2020, defendant raised a motion pursuant to People v. Smith

(1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, requesting appointment of new counsel to assist him in 

withdrawing his plea due to communication problems with counsel at the time of the 

plea. Another court heard and denied the motion.

The same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated 21-year term as 

follows: on count 1, the upper term of nine years, plus a 10-year section 12022.5, 

subdivision (a) enhancement; on count 7, the upper term of three concurrent years; on 

count 13, two consecutive years; and on count 15, the upper term of three concurrent 

years. The court awarded credits and imposed various fines and fees.

On December 9, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The trial court granted 

defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.

2 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
4.

DISCUSSION

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of 

ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.