Filed 7/26/16 P. v. Martinez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

MICHAEL JOHN MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F071297

(Super. Ct. No. BF158077A)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Steven M. 

Katz, Judge.

Rex Adam Williams, 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 Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.
2.

Appellant Michael John Martinez pled no contest to first degree residential 

burglary while another person was present (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 667.5, 

subd. (c)(21))1 and he admitted a serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), a hate 

crime enhancement (§ 422.75, subd. (a)), and allegations that he had a prior conviction 

within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following

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

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On October 29, 2014, Martinez went to his neighbor Sandra Johnson’s apartment 

and knocked on her front door, but Johnson, who is African-American, did not answer. 

Martinez went back to his apartment but soon returned while Johnson was in an upstairs 

room. Martinez yelled an obscenity and kicked in her front door. Johnson panicked and 

opened a window on the second floor so she could jump out of the apartment and escape. 

However, she remembered her son was in the apartment and ran to his room and got him. 

As she ran back to the window, she saw Martinez walk through the kitchen and out the 

front door. Johnson waited until Martinez walked back into his apartment before she ran 

out of her apartment and around the corner where she waited for police. 

Johnson returned to her apartment with the police officers. While Johnson was 

being interviewed, Martinez opened the door to his apartment. Johnson identified 

Martinez as the person who broke into her apartment and the officers arrested him. 

Martinez appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and initially denied breaking into 

Johnson’s apartment. However, in route to the jail he began making numerous 

derogatory and threatening comments about African-Americans. When asked why he 

broke into Johnson’s apartment, Martinez stated that he would have raped Johnson and 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3.

done everything to her but kill her. He also stated that he picked Johnson, and not 

another African-American, because she lived closest to him. 

On October 31, 2014, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Martinez 

with the charges and allegations he pled to and with felony vandalism (count 2, § 594, 

subd. (b)(1)), felony child endangerment (count 3, § 273a, subd. (a)), misdemeanor 

interference with a business (count 4, § 602.1, subd. (b)), and misdemeanor interference 

with a person’s civil rights (count 5, § 422.6, subd. (a)). 

On November 14, 2014, Martinez entered a no contest plea in the instant case, as 

previously noted, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations 

and a stipulated prison term of 10 years. Martinez also admitted violating his probation 

in an unrelated case. 

On February 25, 2015, the court sentenced Martinez, in accordance with his plea 

agreement, to an aggregate, stipulated term of 10 years, the mitigated term of two years 

on his burglary conviction, doubled to four years because of his prior strike conviction, a 

five-year serious felony enhancement, and a one-year hate crime enhancement. 

Martinez’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with 

citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the 

record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Martinez has not responded to this 

court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.

Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably 

arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.