Court Opinion

ID: 9930024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 23:02:14.52034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:58:16.233838
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/5/24 P. v. Opada CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Placer)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098784

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 62-170477)

           v.

 OPADA JOSEPH OPADA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

                         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         The facts of the offenses are recounted in our prior opinion from defendant Opada
Joseph Opada’s initial appeal. (People v. Opada (Jan. 31, 2023, C095530) [nonpub.
opn.].) As relevant here, in 2021, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder and
assault with a deadly weapon. As to the attempted murder conviction, the jury further
found true allegations of premeditation, great bodily injury, and use of a deadly weapon.
The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of life in prison “with the possibility of
parole for the attempted murder, a consecutive four-year upper term for the assault with a

                                                             1
deadly weapon, a consecutive three-year term for [the] finding of great bodily injury, and
a consecutive one-year term for [the personal] use of a deadly weapon.” (Ibid.)
       Defendant appealed and this court vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded the
matter for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats.
2021, ch. 731, § 1.3), effective January 1, 2022. (People v. Opada, supra, C095530.)
       On remand, defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the aggravating
circumstances and stipulated that the trial court could consider evidence presented at his
2021 jury trial. At trial, the court found true that (1) defendant’s conduct involved great
violence, great bodily harm, threat of bodily harm, and other acts disclosing a high degree
of cruelty, viciousness, and callousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)); (2) the
assault victim was particularly vulnerable (id., rule 4.421(a)(3)); and (3) defendant
engaged in violent conduct that creates a serious danger to society (id., rule 4.421(b)(1)).
The court found not true that “[t]he manner in which the crime was carried out
indicate[d] planning, sophistication, or professionalism.” (Id., rule 4.421(a)(8).)
       At resentencing, the trial court again sentenced defendant to a term of life in
prison with the possibility of parole for the attempted murder, a consecutive three-year
term for the finding of great bodily injury, and a consecutive one-year term for the
personal use of a deadly weapon. With respect to the assault conviction, the court found
the aggravating circumstances far exceeded any circumstances in mitigation and
reimposed the upper term of four years.
       Defendant appeals. Upon defendant’s request, the trial court recalculated
defendant’s custody credits and awarded 1,221 days of custody credits for actual time
served up to the date of his resentencing, 112 presentencing conduct credits, and
postsentencing conduct credits to be calculated by the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.

                                             2
                                      DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant
was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the
date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not
filed a supplemental brief.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we affirm.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                 /s/
                                                 ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
DUARTE, J.

/s/
ASHWORTH, J.*

*     Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                             3