Court Opinion

ID: 9838950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 23:04:08.276649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:58.704504
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/8/23 P. v. Manzanales 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085780
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. F20906671)
                    v.

 FABIAN MANZANALES,                                                                       OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Adolfo M.
Corona, Judge.
         Jyoti Malik, 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 Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
                         STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY
       This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that
do not affect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) Moreover, because
Manzanales first presented his claim that the lower court miscalculated his presentence
custody credits in the trial court at the time of the change of plea hearing and then again
at sentencing, the appeal is not barred by Penal Code section 1237.1.1
                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE
       On November 4, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information
charging Manzanales with felony corporal injury on an intimate partner resulting in a
traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), with an enhancement for inflicting great
bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e); felony second degree robbery (§ 211; count 2); and
misdemeanor damage or destruction of real property valued less than $400 (§ 594,
subd. (b)(2)(A); count 3).
       On December 12, 2022, Manzanales entered into a plea agreement pursuant to
which he pled no contest to the charges set forth in counts 1 and 2, for a lid or maximum
sentence of five years. In exchange, the prosecution moved for a dismissal of the
enhancement allegation on count 1, the charge in count 3, and two other cases
(F21901524 and F22904487), which the court granted.
       On January 13, 2023, the trial court denied Manzanales’s oral motion to withdraw
from the plea agreement, finding that his complaint about not receiving presentence
custody credits under section 4019 was not a valid reason for withdrawal. The court then
sentenced Manzanales to the middle term of three years on count 2 (second degree
robbery), and a concurrent three-year term on count 1 (intimate partner abuse). The court
awarded Manzanales 378 actual days and 57 conduct days, for a total of 435 days in

       1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2.
presentence custody credits. The court imposed all mandatory fines and fees, reserving
the right to order victim restitution.
       On February 16, 2023, Manzanales filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                STATEMENT OF FACTS2
       Manzanales and Michelle M. began a dating relationship over the phone in
October 2019, when Michelle was working at the Fresno County Jail, where Manzanales
was an inmate. Michelle and Manzanales cohabited from January to February 2020.
They do not share any children.
       On April 29, 2020, at approximately midnight, Michelle was home with her
daughter C. when Manzanales, who was upset about Michelle giving a ride to a male
friend the prior day, threw a screwdriver through her living room window.
       On June 16, 2020, Michelle, Manzanales, and Michelle’s two minor daughters, C.
and K., arrived at Michelle’s home early in the morning after a night at the casino. The
couple had argued on the drive back home. Michelle fell asleep at around 7 a.m. and
when she woke up, Manzanales was no longer there.
       Manzanales returned at around 10 p.m., saw Michelle sitting on her bed and on her
phone, and demanded that she give him her phone. Michelle refused, Manzanales
grabbed her keys from the nightstand, Michelle “went at him” to try and retrieve her
keys, and a struggle ensued. Initially, there “was a lot of shoving,” however, Michelle
ultimately ended up on her stomach on the floor. Manzanales hit her repeatedly on the
head and kicked her in the face until, according to Michelle, she was unconscious.
Michelle was treated by ambulance personnel but refused any further medical care.

       2 During the December 12, 2022, change of plea hearing, the parties stipulated that
the preliminary hearing transcript along with the police reports filed in this case would
create the factual basis. This statement thus utilizes the reporter’s transcript of the
preliminary hearing.

                                             3.
Michelle’s phone and keys were missing. Michelle suffered a black eye as a result of this
assault.
       Officer Sandra Guerra spoke to Michelle before the ambulance arrived at the
scene. Michelle initially told the officer that she had not seen Manzanales for a week
before the incident but admitted in the follow up interview that they had gone to the
casino together the night before the incident.
       Officer Guerra contacted Manzanales at his mother’s home on the day of the
incident. While there, she spoke to a Ms. Rodriguez, who told her that Manzanales was
with her all day on June 16, 2020. Manzanales’s mother and sister similarly told the
officer that he had not left the family home all day on June 16, 2020. Manzanales’s attire
also did not match the description Michelle had given to Officer Guerra.
       When Officer Guerra returned to Michelle’s residence to conduct a follow up
investigation, Michelle refused the officer entry.
                            APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
       Manzanales’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that
summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the
record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening
brief also includes the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Manzanales was
advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on July 12, 2023, we invited
Manzanales to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Manzanales.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                             4.