People v. Hernandez CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/15/24 P. v. Hernandez CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Lassen)
----
THE PEOPLE, C099643
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 2023-
CR0089466)
v.
JOSE ALFREDO HERNANDEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Jose Alfredo Hernandez filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) After independently examining the record, we find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm the judgment.
1
BACKGROUND
The information charged defendant with possessing a weapon while in prison.
(Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a).)1 It also alleged defendant had a prior serious or violent
felony conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i) and 1192.7, subd. (c).)
At trial, the custodial officer testified he was conducting a mass cell search at the
High Desert State Prison on May 23, 2022. When the officer approached defendant’s
cell (no. 102), defendant passed his t-shirt and pants through the food port to the officer.
The officer found an inmate manufactured weapon inside the pants pocket. It was a flat
piece of plastic with a white handle measuring approximately three and three-fourths of
an inch long and three-fourths of an inch wide.
Further testimony established defendant was designated to permanent single cell
status in 2020. He was the only resident of cell no. 102 for the prior 12 days. Further,
defendant’s building was on lockdown the entire time he was in cell no. 102. This meant
the inmates were predominately secured within their cells with no unrestricted
movements and no yard privileges.
Defendant did not testify.
The jury found defendant guilty as charged. Defendant admitted he had a prior
strike conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to one-third the middle term (one
year in prison), doubled to two years due to his strike conviction, consecutive to his
current prison sentence. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), an equal
parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a court operations fee of $40 (§ 1465.8), and a
conviction assessment fee of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30
days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we
have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
Duarte, J.
We concur:
/s/
Earl, P. J.
/s/
Krause, J.
3