Court Opinion

ID: 9955148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 19:02:13.824469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:17.772729
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/27/24 P. v. Palomino CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D082849

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD298334)

ENRIQUE FABIAN PALOMINO,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed.
         Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
         In March 2023, a bystander found Enrique Fabian Palomino asleep
behind the wheel with his car parked in a travel lane. Palomino was
unresponsive to the bystander’s attempts to rouse him, and the bystander
called 911. Palomino did not answer the police officers’ questions. Police
believed he was under the influence of a controlled substance and detained
him, explaining that they did not want to use force against him. Palomino
replied that they “might have to.” During the subsequent frisk search,
Palomino warned officers so they would not get “poked.” Police discovered a
loaded and uncapped syringe in his pocket as well as two crystalline rocks of
methamphetamine. When police put the rocks on the hood of the car,
Palomino twice leaned forward and tried to blow them off the car.
      When he was not successful in blowing the drugs off the car, Palomino
began to struggle against the handcuffs and police officers. He used his head
to strike one officer and struck another in the chest using his arm. The
officers elected to bring Palomino to the ground to get him under control, at
which point he began kicking and attempted to bite an officer. Palomino
grabbed at an ammunition magazine on one of the officer’s tactical belts
before becoming compliant.
      Following a three-day trial, a jury convicted Palomino of resisting a
peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148(a)), possession of a controlled substance
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11377(a)), and possession of drug paraphernalia
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). The trial court sentenced him to time served
and stayed his fines pursuant to People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th
1157, 1172.
      Palomino now appeals his conviction. We appointed appellate counsel,
who filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)
stating that she had not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Counsel asked the court to review the record for error as
mandated by Wende. We offered Palomino the opportunity to file his own
brief on appeal, but he did not respond.
      As we have noted, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief and asks us to
review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in

                                       2
compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating
the potential merits of this appeal: (1) Whether the trial court erred in
allowing the police officers to testify to the department’s use of force policy;
(2) Whether the trial court erred in giving CALCRIM No. 333; and
(3) Whether the trial court erred in giving CALCRIM No. 2673.
      We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Palomino on this appeal.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                 DO, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

RUBIN, J.

                                        3