People v. Battle CA5 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 2/18/16 P. v. Battle 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                          F069381
    v.                                                                   (Super. Ct. No. F13911573)
    GARY JOHN BATTLE,
    OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A.
    Gaab, Judge.
    Jill M. Klein, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Peña, J.
    Appellant Gary John Battle pled no contest to felony resisting an executive officer
    (Pen. Code, § 69).1 Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    , we affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    On December 9, 2013, a deputy at the county jail observed what he believed was a
    hand-to-hand drug transaction between Battle and another male. As the deputy
    approached Battle, he saw him put something behind his back. The deputy asked Battle
    for his name and he replied, “Man you might as well read me my rights.” Although
    Battle turned around as instructed, when the deputy attempted to grab Battle’s hands,
    Battle began to resist. As the deputy began to patsearch him, Battle pulled his right hand
    away. The deputy handcuffed Battle’s left hand but Battle was able to break free and
    attempted to turn to face the deputy. However, a second deputy grabbed Battle’s arm and
    placed it behind his back. Battle fought both deputies but they were able to take him to
    the ground. Battle continued to fight and resist and would not place his hands behind his
    back until one of the deputies applied a Taser to Battle’s back and he became compliant.
    During a search of Battle, the deputies found a small knife, several cell phones, and 14.5
    ounces of marijuana.
    On December 11, 2013, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Battle with
    bringing a controlled substance into a jail (count 1/§ 4573.5), resisting an executive
    officer (count 2/§ 69), and five prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
    On January 24, 2014, Battle pled no contest to resisting an executive officer in
    exchange for the dismissal of the remaining count and allegations. The agreement also
    provided that Battle would be released from custody with a Cruz2 waiver and the
    1      Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    2      People v. Cruz (1988) 
    44 Cal. 3d 1247
    .
    2
    resisting an executive officer offense would be reduced to a misdemeanor, if he appeared
    for sentencing. If he failed to appear, however, the prosecutor would not agree to reduce
    the charge to a misdemeanor.
    On March 11, 2014, Battle did not appear at his sentencing hearing.
    On May 2, 2014, Battle appeared in court. After denying his motion to reduce his
    resisting an executive officer offense to a misdemeanor, the court sentenced Battle to the
    mitigated term of 16 months, split into four months in custody and 12 months on
    mandatory supervised release.
    Battle’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with
    citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the
    record. (People v. 
    Wende, supra
    , 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    .) Battle has not responded to this court’s
    invitation to submit additional briefing.
    Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably
    arguable factual or legal issues exist.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F069381

Filed Date: 2/18/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021