Court Opinion

ID: 9917269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 20:02:23.114561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:00.563846
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/11/24 P. v. Mendoza 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098757

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                          (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                    STKCRFE20230003720)
           v.

 FREDERICO ALBERTO MENDOZA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Frederico Alberto Mendoza filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts 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.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                      BACKGROUND
       In March 2023, defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a
firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1);1 count 1), elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (b)(1);
count 2), and resisting, obstructing, or delaying an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3).
As to count 1, the complaint alleged a strike prior (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b))
and multiple factors in aggravation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(b)(2), (b)(3) &
(b)(4)).
       In April 2023, defendant pleaded no contest to the firearm possession charge
alleged in count 1. The prosecuting attorney read the allegations in count 1 of the
complaint, including the aggravating factors, as the factual basis for the plea. Defense
counsel agreed that the aggravating factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule
4.421(b)(3) (defendant served a prior prison term) and rule 4.421(b)(4) (defendant was on
probation at the time of the crime) justified imposition of the upper term on the firearm
possession charge.
       The trial court accepted defendant’s plea. The court sentenced defendant to the
upper term of three years in state prison and imposed a restitution fine of $300 under
section 1202.4, plus an additional court assessment of $40 under section 1465.8 and
conviction assessment of $30 under Government Code section 70373. The court also
imposed and suspended a $300 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. Defendant
received 46 days of custody credit consisting of 23 days actual custody and 23 days local
conduct credit. The court issued a protective order that defendant shall not annoy, harass,
threaten, or strike the victim.
       The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the remaining counts in
the interest of justice and struck the strike prior and factors in aggravation as alleged.

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Defendant requested a certificate of
probable cause, which the trial court denied.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 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 error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                     /s/
                                                    Ashworth, J.

We concur:

 /s/
Hull, Acting P. J.

 /s/
Renner, 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