Opinion
H044320
08-31-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEOPOLDO MANZO, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1499129)
Defendant Leopoldo Manzo, Jr. pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and a four-year prison sentence. On appeal, his counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified defendant of his right to submit a written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110 (Kelly), we will provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." We will further include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Ibid.) I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts are taken from the probation report and the preliminary hearing transcript.
On December 12, 2014, defendant got into an altercation with his mother. He forced his way into her bedroom and put his hands around her neck. When defendant released his mother, she left the house. Later that day, she was sitting in a vehicle with her niece and nephew. Defendant approached them in another vehicle. When they drove away, defendant attempted to ram their vehicle or run them off the road. The nephew called 911.
Responding officers attempted to conduct a felony stop of defendant's vehicle. Instead of stopping, defendant sped up to 100 mph before eventually pulling over and surrendering.
On December 18, 2014, the Santa Clara County District Attorney charged defendant by felony complaint with stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)); assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); and assault with a deadly weapon, a car (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The complaint also alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (b) through (i) and 1170.12.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Following an October 1, 2015 preliminary hearing, the trial court held defendant to answer on all three counts charged in the complaint. The court further concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find a violation of section 136.1, subdivision (b)(2), dissuading a witness.
On November 14, 2016, defendant pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon, a metal object, and admitted the prior strike. At that time, count 3 was modified to identify the deadly weapon as a metal object instead of a car. The terms of the plea included dismissal of the other charges and a four-year prison term.
Thereafter, defendant informed his public defender that he wanted to withdraw his plea. Seeing no legal grounds for a plea withdrawal, she advised him to proceed with a Marsden motion, which he did. The court held a hearing on defendant's Marsden motion on December 19, 2016. After hearing from defendant and defense counsel regarding the plea negotiations, defendant's desire to withdraw his plea, and counsel's representation generally, the court denied the motion.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 118. --------
On December 20, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to a four-year term on count 3, consisting of the low term of two years doubled by the strike. The court also dismissed the remaining charges. The court ordered defendant released because, with "737 days actual plus 736 days pursuant to Penal Code [s]ection 4019 for a total of 1,473 days," he had served his four-year sentence.
Also on December 20, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal, indicating he would challenge the validity of his plea. The trial court granted defendant's request for certificate of probable cause, which stated that he felt pressured to take the plea, was in physical pain at the time he accepted the plea, had concerns regarding his attorney's preparation, and maintained his innocence. The notice of appeal was amended on February 15, 2017 to indicate that defendant also intended to appeal from his sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
Having examined the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
ELIA, ACTING P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. /s/_________
MIHARA, J.