People v. Weems CA4/2 ( 2015 )

Filed 10/27/15 P. v. Weems CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063103
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1402664)
CURTIS WEEMS, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. William Jefferson
Powell IV, Judge. Affirmed.
Frank J. Torrano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Curtis Weems, Jr., was charged by information with
assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code1, § 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1.) It was also
alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the
charged offense. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) A jury found defendant guilty of count 1, and
found true the great bodily injury allegation. A trial court sentenced defendant to the
upper term of four years on count 1 and a consecutive three years on the great bodily
injury enhancement.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2014, Reginald Peralta and Philip Thompson were in the parking lot
of Thompson’s apartment complex. Peralta noticed defendant, who was walking through
the parking lot, cursing to himself. Defendant was about 15 feet away from them, and he
was holding a knife. At that point, Thompson’s neighbor (the neighbor) arrived and
parked his car. Thompson introduced the neighbor to Peralta, and they began talking.
Defendant approached the neighbor, with the knife in his hand, cursed at him, and told
him he needed to leave. The neighbor left, and defendant followed him. The neighbor
went into an area of the complex to get away from the situation. Peralta told Thompson
to go inside, since defendant had a knife. Defendant then approached Peralta, and started
cursing at him. Defendant was wielding the knife, and told Peralta to “get the ‘F’ out of
here.” Defendant said he was not “playing” and threatened to kill Peralta. Defendant
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
noted.
2
looked angry and was waving the knife back and forth. Peralta told defendant he did not
know him and told him to get away from him. Peralta said he did not want to have a
confrontation, and that he was going to get in his car and leave. Peralta backed up toward
his car, and defendant ran toward him and stabbed him in his right arm. Defendant stated
again that he was “not F-ing playing,” while yelling at Peralta. Peralta backed up and
tried to get into his car, when defendant swung the knife at him again and stabbed him in
the abdomen. Peralta eventually escaped from the parking lot. The police located
defendant shortly after the incident. After waiving his Miranda2 rights, defendant
admitted to a police officer that he “stabbed somebody.”
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal. 3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and two potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in denying
probation without expressly stating it had considered whether this was “an ‘unusual
case[] where the interests of justice would best be served if the person is granted
probation’ (§ 1203, subd. (e))”; and (2) whether the court erred in imposing the upper
term on count 1, in light of defendant’s war-time service in the United States Air Force,
and his various problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder, disability, and anxiety.
Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4