Filed 8/1/ 22 P. v. Gonzalez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE FIGUEROA GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. H049701 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 20CR05253)

Defendant Jose Figueroa Gonzalez appeals from a judgment entered after he

pleaded no contest to one count of involuntary manslaughter by an unlawful act (Pen.

Code, § 192, subd. (b)). 1 Appointed c ounsel for Gonzalez has filed an opening brief that

states the case and the facts but raises no issues . Counsel asks this court to conduct an

independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues.

(See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Gonzalez was advised of the right to file

written arguments on his own behalf but has not responded. Finding no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to Gonzalez , we affirm the judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background 2

On December 2, 2020, Watsonville police officers responded to a report of a

battery at a Burger King restaurant . They found the victim, Fernando Higareda Cazares,

lying unconscious near the drive

- thru . Officers reviewed security footage and saw

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 The factual background is taken from the probation report.2

Cazares walk up to a “ Chevy Tahoe ” in the drive

- thru line , where he apparently spoke

with the occupants of the Tahoe. The passenger in the Tahoe got out of the vehicle,

walked to the rear of the vehicle, and punched Cazares once with his r ight hand. Cazares

fell down, landing on his back. The passenger returned to the Tahoe and the driver

proceeded forward in the drive

- thru . Cazares sustained subdural hematomas and a skull

fracture, and he was declared dead a week later.

Officers retri eved a beer bottle from the scene, and after collecting DNA from the

bottle, were able to identify the passenger as Gonzalez. Before Cazares’ s death, o fficers

contacted Gonzalez, who admitted to striking Cazares. Gonzalez “said that the two

exchanged wor ds and he asked [Cazares] if he wanted to fight and [Cazares] said,

‘whatever you want.’ ” He stated he was “drunk” and that it was “ ‘an act of stupidity.’ ”

Gonzalez stated that since the incident, he had stopped drinking and that he wanted to

write Ca zares a letter of apology.

On December 11, 2020, the Santa Cruz County District Attorney charged

Gonzalez by felony complaint with assault by means or force likely to produce great

bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and with battery resulting in seriou s bodily injury

(§ 243, subd. (d)) . The assault offense included an allegation that the injury caused

Cazares to become comatose due to a brain injury or to suffer paralysis (§ 12022.7,

subd. (b)).

On December 14, 2020, the district attorney filed an am ended complaint, adding a

charge of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and removing the battery offense

. On November 17, 202 1

, the district attorney filed a second amended complaint,

which removed all previous offenses and instead charged Gonzalez with a single count of

involuntary manslaughter by an unlawful act (§ 192, subd. (b)).

On November 18, 2021, Gonzalez pleaded no contest to the single involuntary

manslaughter charge

.3

On January 13, 2022, the parties appeared before the trial court for the

sentencing hearing. The trial court imposed a split sentence pursuant to section 1170,

subdivision (h)(5), consisting of 18 months in county jail and 18 months of mandatory

supervision. The court credited Gonzalez for one day of custody. The court also

imposed a $300 restitution fine ( § 1202.4, subd. (b); § 2085.5) , a $40 court operations

assessment (§ 1465.8), a $30 facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and imposed but stayed a

$300 mandatory supervision restitution fine (§ 1202.45)

. The co urt ordered general

restitution to Cazares’s family.

On January 14 , 202 2

, Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal but did not seek a

certificate of probable cause.

II. Discussion

Pursuant to People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire

record . W e find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to

Gonzale z

. III. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.___________________________________ Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________

Greenwood, P.J.

______________________________________

Danner, J.

People v. Gonzalez
H 049701