Court Opinion

ID: 9947809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 18:04:35.982063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:35.492330
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/5/24 P. v. Salazar 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         H050714
                                                                    (San Benito County
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                               Super. Ct. No. CR2100954)

             v.

 JOSE LUIS SALAZAR, JR.,

             Defendant and Appellant.

         A jury convicted defendant Jose Luis Salazar, Jr. of assault with a deadly weapon
(Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)1). The trial court sentenced Salazar to the middle term of
three years in prison, with credit for having already served that time.
         We appointed counsel to represent Salazar on appeal. Counsel filed a brief asking
this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Salazar was advised of
his right to file a supplemental brief, and he filed a letter brief that we have considered.
Finding no arguable error in the appellate record that would result in a disposition more
favorable to Salazar, we affirm the judgment.

         1
             Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                    I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       A. Procedural History
       In December 2021, the San Benito County District Attorney filed an information
charging Salazar with attempted murder (§§ 664, 187 [count 1]) and assault with a deadly
weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1) [count 2]).
       In January 2022, Salazar’s defense counsel asked the trial court to appoint a
psychotherapist to examine Salazar and provide counsel information about a possible
insanity plea or defense based on Salazar’s emotional condition. The court granted the
request (Evid. Code, § 1017).
       In March 2022, defense counsel declared a doubt about Salazar’s competence to
stand trial. The trial court suspended the proceedings and appointed a psychotherapist to
evaluate Salazar’s competence (§ 1368). In June 2022, after receiving the
psychotherapist’s report, the court found Salazar competent to stand trial.
       On December 1, 2022, the jury found Salazar guilty on count 2 but failed to reach
a verdict on count 1. Salazar defense counsel moved to dismiss count 1 under section
1385. The prosecutor did not object. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed
count 1 in the interest of justice.
       On January 9, 2023, the trial court sentenced Salazar to the middle term of three
years in prison. Salazar’s defense counsel did not object to that term. Further, counsel
entered a stipulation with the prosecutor on the issue of presentence custody credits,
providing Salazar with 1,095 days (or three years) of credit. The court accepted the
stipulation and deemed the imposed sentence served. The court suspended all fines and
fees, finding that Salazar did not have the ability to pay them.
       Salazar appealed.

                                                 2
       B. Evidence Presented at Trial
           1. Prosecution Evidence
       On the morning of August 12, 2021,2 25-year-old Salazar was at home with his
father and mother. When Salazar made his way downstairs to the home’s kitchen, his
mother said “ ‘good morning’ ” to him. He did not respond. Salazar and his father began
to argue. Salazar’s father told Salazar to leave the house. Salazar pushed his father to the
floor, hit him, and cut him with a knife. Salazar’s mother put a chair between the two
men and separated them. Salazar’s father and mother left the house and called the police.
       The police found Salazar walking nearby with a knife clipped to his pants and
injuries to his hand. Salazar told the police that he had stabbed his father in “ ‘self-
defense.’ ”
           2. Defense Evidence
       Salazar testified in his own defense. Salazar explained that after waking up on the
morning of August 21, he headed downstairs while listening to a podcast through
earphones. As Salazar prepared himself breakfast, he noticed his father shouting and
pacing behind him.3 Salazar removed his earphones and explained that he had not heard
his mother’s greeting. Salazar’s father shouted “abusive insults” at Salazar. Salazar
testified that his father “treats everybody like that” and opined that his father is “evil.”
Salazar testified further that his father had “[n]ever” punched him before and “never
really hit” him during his childhood.
       Salazar asked his father to be considerate, but his father continued shouting. After
Salazar sat down with his breakfast, his father rushed toward him, grabbed his food, and

       2
         Unless otherwise indicated, all dates were in 2021.
       3
         Salazar referred to his parents as “the man and the woman of the other party,”
explaining that “referring to them as mom and dad is difficult because . . . it was a painful
and traumatic situation that occurred to [him].” For consistency and clarity, we use
“father,” “mother,” and “parents” when summarizing Salazar’s testimony.
                                                   3
threw it into the sink. Salazar’s father shouted, “ ‘Get your shit and get the fuck out of
my house.’ ”
       Salazar went upstairs, changed his clothes, and returned downstairs “want[ing] to
have a civilized conversation and not just end this on a bad note.” When Salazar asked
his father if he cared about him because he really needed his father’s help, his father “just
kind of ma[de] fun of” Salazar and approached him. Salazar’s father “attacked [Salazar]
by punching.” Salazar defended himself “by punching [his father] six consecutive
times.” Salazar’s mother “attacked [Salazar] by pulling [his] head by [his] hair” as he
“finished with defending” himself. Salazar “instinctively threw a punch” that hit his
mother and “managed to get her away.” Salazar’s father initiated another attack by
punching Salazar. He punched his father back “four consecutive times.” Salazar’s
mother sprinted at him and “rammed a chair into [him].” His “face went flush” and “the
impact made [him] go extremely cold.”
       At that point Salazar “realized that it was more than just a dangerous altercation
that [he] was forced into, now it was a lethal altercation.” He “yelled at [his parents] to
get away from [him].” “As they continued their attack and [he] yelled ‘get away from
me,’ ” he “pulled out [his] everyday carry, which is a [pocketknife] that [he] always
ha[s], and [he] started swinging it” in the shape of “the infinity sign.” Salazar’s parents
continued their attack on him, and he took three steps back. Salazar testified: “I wasn’t
trying to hurt them. I remember he was striking at me and I was trying not to get his face,
I was trying not to get his arms, so I was essentially, as he’s striking me, working my way
around them.”
       After his parents stopped attacking him, Salazar left the house. He noticed that his
hand had been injured—it was “broken, severely swollen, [and] bleeding from the impact
of the chair.” He decided to walk to a hospital. As he was walking, the police
“confronted [him] at gunpoint.”

                                                 4
                                    II. DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent Salazar on appeal. After reviewing the record,
appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues. Counsel advised Salazar that he may
personally submit a supplemental brief. Thereafter, this court received from Salazar a
handwritten letter brief.
       In his letter brief, Salazar appears to assert that the prosecutor committed
misconduct during his closing argument by “present[ing] evidence out of context as a
manipulative tactic” so “[a]s to deceive the jury” into believing Salazar “attacked the
other party when in reality it was in perfect self[-]defense.” In the same vein, Salazar
contends that his defense counsel, in closing argument, “didn’t even inform the jury that
[Salazar] was injured by a deadly weapon (chair).” Salazar further contends that the
prosecutor told the jurors in closing argument to “skip over” and “ignore certain verdict
forms” to find him guilty. Additionally, Salazar asserts that his defense counsel only
spoke to him “twice about the case [and counsel] didn’t even know the details[,]
[e]ssentially going off of the corrupt presentation that [the prosecutor] provided.”
       To the extent Salazar contends in his letter brief that the prosecutor committed
misconduct in argument, those claims were not preserved for appellate review by a timely
objection at trial. (See People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1328 [“It is well
settled that making a timely and specific objection at trial, and requesting the jury be
admonished . . ., is a necessary prerequisite to preserve a claim of prosecutorial
misconduct for appeal.”].)
       Furthermore, to the extent that Salazar attempts to assert that his defense counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the prosecutor’s
misconduct or to adequately prepare and present a defense, Salazar’s assertions lack the
factual support required in a direct appeal.
       “Prosecutors have wide latitude to discuss and draw inferences from the evidence
at trial.” (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 473.) “ ‘A defendant whose counsel
                                                 5
did not object at trial to alleged prosecutorial misconduct can argue on appeal that
counsel’s inaction violated the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance
of counsel.’ ” (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674.) However, a “mere failure
to object to evidence or argument seldom establishes counsel’s incompetence.” (People
v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 772.) Additionally, “[t]he decision of how to argue to the
jury after the presentation of evidence is inherently tactical” and defense counsel is not
incompetent for making that decision based “on how the trial actually went, not how it
might have gone.” (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 498.)
       “To make out a claim that counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance,
‘the defendant must first show counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Second, the
defendant must show resulting prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been
different.’ ” (People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 958; see also Strickland v.
Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).)
       “It is particularly difficult to prevail on an appellate claim of ineffective
assistance. On direct appeal, a conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance only
if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the
challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one,
or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. All other claims of ineffective
assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.” (People v.
Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009.)
       A court can reject a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel if the defendant fails
to establish either element of the Strickland standard. (See Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at
p. 687; People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1008, disapproved on another ground
in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22.)

                                                  6
       Based on our review of the record, Salazar cannot satisfy his burden on appeal to
show that his defense counsel performed deficiently. Salazar has not shown that there
could be no satisfactory explanation for his defense counsel’s failure to object to the
prosecutor’s argument that Salazar used more force than was reasonably necessary to
defend himself against his parents. The record does not support Salazar’s allegation of
prosecutorial manipulation and deception of the jury. Salazar’s further assertion that his
defense counsel did not inform the jury that he (Salazar) was injured by a chair is
contradicted by the record. In his closing argument, defense counsel told the jurors that
Salazar’s mother “pushe[d] the chair into him,” thereby injuring his hand.4 That
argument is consistent with Salazar’s own testimony.
       Regarding the verdict forms, the prosecutor suggested in his closing argument that
the jurors should start their deliberation by considering count 2 (because “it’s the easiest
charge”) and finding Salazar guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. The prosecutor also
said that the jurors did not have to follow his suggestion and could “certainly [] do it any
way [they] want.” After explaining how the evidence proved Salazar’s guilt of assault
with a deadly weapon, the prosecutor stated further: “So, as a result, the simple assault
verdict form is not one that you have to consider when you find the defendant guilty, as
you ought, of assault with a deadly weapon, do not complete the simple assault form,
because it is a lesser included. You only get there if, which you should not, you find the
defendant not guilty of count two.”
       The prosecutor did not plainly state that the jurors could not consider the lesser
offense (simple assault) until they reached a verdict on the greater offense. Rather, the
prosecutor’s argument was consistent with the trial court’s instruction to the jurors (using
CALCRIM No. 3518) about their deliberations and completion of the verdict forms. In
addition, the court instructed the jurors that if an attorney’s comments on the law

       4
          Defense counsel argued in part, “She . . . pushes the chair into him. If you’re
like this, you’re gonna get hit. If you lead like this, you’re gonna get hit in the hand.”
                                                  7
appeared to conflict with the court’s instructions, the jurors were required to follow the
court’s instructions. Under these circumstances, Salazar has not demonstrated that his
defense counsel’s failure to object to the identified portion of the prosecutor’s closing
argument amounts to constitutionally deficient performance.
       Regarding Salazar’s assertion that he only spoke to his defense counsel twice, the
appellate record does not include information about the number or substance of any
conversations Salazar had with his counsel. Furthermore, Salazar’s related assertion that
his counsel did not know the details of the case and essentially followed the prosecutor’s
“corrupt presentation” is not supported by the record. Counsel cross-examined every
prosecution witness (including Salazar’s parents, extensively) and questioned Salazar in a
manner consistent with the self-defense theory. Counsel also presented a closing
argument that discussed the evidence in some detail and explained why “an acquittal
[wa]s warranted [i]n this case on both counts because of self-defense.”
       “A defendant who raises the [ineffective assistance] issue on appeal must establish
deficient performance based upon the four corners of the record.” (People v.
Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003.) Salazar’s current assertions that his defense
counsel failed to adequately prepare, know the facts of the case, and present a defense are
not supported by the appellate record.
       For these reasons, and having carefully reviewed the entire appellate record, we
conclude that Salazar’s contentions do not amount to arguable issues in this appeal.
Further, we are satisfied appointed appellate counsel for Salazar has complied with
counsel’s responsibilities and there are no arguable issues. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 118–124; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
                                   III. DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                 8
                           _____________________________________
                                      Danner, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________
Greenwood, P. J.

____________________________________
Bromberg, J.

H050714
People v. Salazar