People v. Castro CA4/2 ( 2022 )

Filed 8/9/22 P. v. Castro 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E078753
v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2104295)
ROBERT CASTRO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Judith Clark, Judge.
Affirmed.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Robert Castro appeals following a guilty plea. Counsel
has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
1
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an independent review
of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief
with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we
find no error and affirm the judgment.
II.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2021, a witness was outside cleaning his vehicle when he saw
defendant throw a punch at the victim. Defendant’s punch missed the victim’s head, but
she fell to the ground. As the victim was on the ground, defendant punched her multiple
times with a closed fist. After the witness and his father separated defendant and the
victim, defendant fled the scene and was gone before deputies arrived. During the
change of plea hearing, defendant admitted that he willfully and unlawfully inflicted a
corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on the victim, someone with whom he
had a dating relationship.
On October 6, 2021, a complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of
willfully inflicting corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant/girlfriend (Pen. Code, §§ 273.5,
subd. (a), 243, subd. (f)(10)). The complaint further alleged that defendant had suffered a
prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667 (c), (e), 1170.12 (c)(1).)
1
The factual background is taken from the arrest warrant and defendant’s
admission at the plea hearing.
2
On January 31, 2022, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement and after waiving
his constitutional rights, defendant pled guilty as charged to inflicting corporal injury on
the victim. He also admitted the truth of prior strike allegation. Thereafter, defendant
requested to be immediately sentenced and waived probation referral. Thus, pursuant to
the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of two years,
doubled to four years due to the strike, to prison with credit for time served.
On March 28, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal “based on the sentence or
other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.”
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause.
III.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential
arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-
3
442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386
U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
4