People v. Ortiz CA2/2 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/30/15 P. v. Ortiz CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION TWO
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          B256479
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. SA084327)
    v.
    JAIME MIGUEL ORTIZ,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT:*
    Defendant and appellant Jaime Miguel Ortiz (defendant) appeals his conviction
    relating to his attack of a transit employee. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant
    to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    (Wende), raising no issues. On November 14,
    2014, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30
    days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have
    considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We
    have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
    Defendant was charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor, as follows: assault
    with a deadly weapon upon transportation personnel by means likely to produce great
    bodily injury in violation of Penal Code section 245.2 (count 1);1 battery with injury
    *        ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.
    1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
    upon transit personnel, in violation of section 243.3 (count 2); and resisting arrest, in
    violation of 148, subdivision (a)(1) (count 3). The information further alleged as to
    counts 1 and 2 that during the commission of the crimes, defendant personally inflicted
    great bodily injury on the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, and that
    defendant had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning the
    “Three Strikes” law, sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions
    (b) through (j).
    Defendant waived his right to a jury and proceeded to a bench trial. The evidence
    showed that defendant was riding a Metro train when the shift ended for train operator
    Mario Martinez (Martinez), who asked the passengers to transfer to a different train.
    Defendant was the last remaining passenger on the original train when he attacked
    Martinez. Defendant punched and then pushed Martinez to the floor where defendant
    continued to punch Martinez as he went in and out of consciousness. After Martinez
    managed to escape and summon help, several law enforcement officers struggled to
    restrain and arrest defendant, who flailed violently until officers used a taser on him
    twice. Martinez suffered minor orbital fractures, a concussion, and a laceration requiring
    four stitches. He was left with lasting pain, fear for his safety, nightmares, suicidal
    feelings, headaches, and difficulty sleeping.
    Defendant spent nearly three weeks in the hospital on a psychiatric hold. During
    that stay defendant tested positive for cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP, and marijuana.
    He was diagnosed with a drug-induced psychotic disorder. Defendant’s psychiatric
    expert, Gordon Plotkin, who interviewed defendant and reviewed his documented history
    of methamphetamine use and preexisting mental illness, opined that defendant suffered
    from a mental illness with symptoms of psychosis such as mild hallucinations, mild
    paranoia, and unstable moods. Defendant told Dr. Plotkin that he thought he was being
    assaulted by the victim. Defendant admitted to past methamphetamine use and to having
    smoked a PCP-laced cigarette the day of the attack, but claimed that someone had put it
    there without his knowledge. Dr. Plotkin explained that defendant’s prolonged resistance
    2
    to arrest requiring a second taser application was consistent with PCP and
    methamphetamine use.
    Defendant’s expert in emergency medicine, physician Ryan O’Connor, reviewed
    Martinez’s emergency room records, and testified that the orbital fracture and laceration
    were minor and that Martinez showed no symptoms of a concussion, such as weakness,
    blurred vision, trouble sleeping, nausea, lightheadedness, and trouble concentrating,
    while he was in the emergency room. Dr. O’Connor agreed, however that some
    concussion symptoms, such as trouble sleeping, could develop later.
    On May 20, 2014, the trial court found defendant guilty of all three counts as
    charged and found true the special allegations. Immediately following the verdict, the
    court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of nine years, consisting of the low term
    of three years as to count 1, doubled as a second strike, plus three years for the great
    bodily injury enhancement. The sentence as to count 2 was stayed under section 654.
    The court imposed one year in jail for count 3, to be served consecutively, with credit of
    a total of 365 days (183 actual days plus 182 days of conduct credit). The court then
    awarded 189 days of custody credit toward the prison sentence on count 1, consisting of
    165 days actual custody credits and 24 days of conduct credits earned at the rate of 15
    percent pursuant to section 2933.1. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the
    judgment.
    We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has
    fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We conclude
    that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our
    review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment
    entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 278; People v.
    Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal. 4th 106
    , 123-124.)
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B256479

Filed Date: 1/30/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021