Court Opinion

ID: 9955687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 23:03:04.997221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:15.354383
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/28/24 P. v. Orona 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F086414
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. No. F21909624)
                    v.

    CARLOS ORONA,                                                                         OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
          APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David
Andrew Gottlieb, Judge.
         William D. Farber, 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 Poochigian, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.
       Appellate counsel for defendant Carlos Orona has filed an opening brief
summarizing the pertinent facts and raising no issues but asking this court to review the
record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening
brief also includes a declaration from appellate counsel stating defendant was advised of
his right to file a brief of his own with this court. By letter dated December 22, 2023, we
also invited defendant to submit additional briefing. Defendant did not file a response.
       Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following our Supreme Court’s
direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of
the case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                              PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
       On December 27, 2021, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with
resisting executive officers executing their duty (Pen. Code,1 § 69, a felony; count 1),
making criminal threats (§ 422, a felony; count 2), battery upon a peace officer (§ 243,
subd. (b), a misdemeanor; count 3), and public intoxication (§ 647, subd. (f), a
misdemeanor; count 4). The day after the complaint was filed, defendant pled not guilty
to all four charges brought against him.
       On February 7, 2023, before a preliminary hearing was held, defendant signed a
“Felony Advisement, Waiver of Rights, and Plea Form.” The form indicated defendant
was now withdrawing his not guilty pleas and was instead pleading no contest to count 1,
alleging a violation of section 69. The form further indicated that in exchange for his no
contest plea, the remaining counts would be dismissed. A notification of defendant’s
military veteran status was also filed at this time. The trial court accepted the change of

1      All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2.
plea and found it was made “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily and that the plea is
supported by a factual basis.” The prosecution and defense counsel also stipulated to
there being a factual basis for the plea pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595.
       On March 23, 2023, the trial court referred defendant to a Veterans Administration
(VA) treatment program. On April 26, 2023, defendant expressed his desire to obtain
services directly from the VA rather than participate in the Veterans Treatment Court. The
trial court then suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant formal probation
for two years, conditioned on various terms and conditions. After also imposing various
fines and fees, the court then awarded defendant 32 days of actual credit and 32 days of
local conduct credit for a total of 64 days of presentence custody credit.
       On June 9, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal. No certificate of probable
cause was issued by the court.
                                 FACTUAL SUMMARY
       The summary of facts relevant to count 1 is taken from the probation report
submitted to the trial court at the time of sentencing. On December 22, 2021, a report
was made to law enforcement that an intoxicated male was harassing and screaming at
female customers in a grocery store. The responding police officer encountered the
suspect who was later identified as being defendant. Upon his arrest for public
intoxication, defendant became uncooperative when the officer attempted to place him in
a patrol car. Defendant refused to comply with the officer’s commands and physically
prevented the officer from putting him in the patrol car. This behavior continued even
after other officers arrived to assist. When he was finally placed in the patrol car,
defendant kicked one of the officers in the face. Defendant continued to be
uncooperative and hostile at the county jail, making multiple threats to the arresting
officer including a threat to stab him in the neck. Defendant also refused to cooperate
with the jail medical staff.

                                              3.
                                    DISCUSSION
      Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude there is no arguable
issue to consider on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–443.)
                                    DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                           4.