1

Filed 3/10/ 21 P. v. Ruelas CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEBORAH ANN RUELAS

, Defendant and Appellant

. A 160516

( City and County of San Francisco

Super. Ct. No. SCN231480 )

On June 28, 2019, t he San Francisco District Attorney filed an

information charging defendant Deborah Ann Ruelas with the

following three felony offenses based on a May 3, 2019 incident: (1)

assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (count one) ( Pen.

Code, 1 § 245, subd. (a)(4)) ; (2) inflicting injury on an elder person likely

to cause great bodily injury (count two ) ( § 368, subd. (b)(1)) ; and (3)

assault with a deadly weapon

- not a firearm (bottle) (count three ) ( §

245, subd. (a)(1 ))

. The information also included two sentence

enhancement allegations: (1) prohibition of probation due to

defendant’s prior felony convictions; and (2) that at the time of the

incident defendant was on probation for a prior felony conviction for

1 A ll further unspecified statutory ref erences are to the Penal

Code.2

assault ( §§ 1203, subd . (e)(4), 1203k). On July 10, 2019, after a

hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s request for admission into

the court’s Mental Health Diversion program.

At a jury trial in September 2019, the jury heard eyewitness

testimony and saw a video of the confrontation between defendant and

the elder victim

. D efendant struck the elder victim in the face with her

hand and threw a beer bottle that struck the back side of the elder

victim’s caretaker. T he jury also heard testimony that the elder victim

had bruising on the side of her face visible a few days after the assault,

but h ad no other lasting physica l effects. The caretaker had shoulder

pain for a day but no lasting physical effects

. Defendant was acquitted

of the three felony counts, but found guilty of lesser included

misdemeanors of simple assault ( counts one and three )( § 240) and

abuse of an elder person (count two) ( § 368, subd. (b)(1))

.

In November 2019, sentencing proceedings were suspended after

defendant’s trial counsel stated he had a doubt as to defendant’s

competency. In Januar y 2020, after receipt of forensic reports, the

court decla red defendant in competent ; she was committed in Fe bruary

to the California Department of State Hospitals to receive “competency

training in a locked forensic setting.” Several month s la ter, on May 11,

2020, the court declared defendant ’s competency had been restored

based on a report from the jail behavioral health services and both

parties’ willingness to submit that defendant was competent . The

proceedings were reinstated and a d ate was set for sentencing.

On May 27, 2020, defendant was sentenced on count two (abuse

of an elder person ) to a term of one year in county jail with credit for

time served ( resulting in the completion of that term ) ; the sentences on3

the remaining counts one and three were imposed but stayed pursuant

to section 654. After the court revoked defenda nt’s probation imposed

on her prior felony c onviction for assault, d efendant was sentenced to a

concurrent term of two years in state prison, with credit for time served

( resulting in the completion of that term ) , an d she was released to

parole supervision

. The court imposed a restitution fine of $150, a

court operations assessment fee of $40, and a criminal conviction

assessment of $30 , with all imposed sums stayed pending an ability to

pay hearing.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief asking us to independently

review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Appellate

counsel has averred defendant was advised of her righ t to file a

supplemental brief, but she has not filed such a brief. Having

independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues

that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.

D ISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.4 _________________________ Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Fujisaki, Acting P.J.

_________________________ Wiseman, J. *

People v. Ruelas /A160516

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate

District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6

of the California Constitution.