People v. Padilla CA2/5 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/16/24 P. v. Padilla CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B335211
Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County
Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA503503)
v.
MARIA ESTHER PADILLA,
Defendant and
Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the
County of Los Angeles, Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed.
Andrew F. Alire, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant Maria Padilla guilty of one count of
assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, her appointed counsel
filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende). We affirm.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2022, the victim, Rebecca Patron, met
three friends at the La Zona Rosa, a club in Los Angeles,
sometime between 12:40 and 1:00 a.m. The club was crowded
and around 1:45 a.m., there was an announcement that it was
preparing to close. At the time, the victim was sitting at a table
near the bar with her three friends.
When one of her friends stood up, the victim turned to her
right and saw defendant1 standing next to a man approximately
five feet away. Defendant shouted angrily at the victim in
English, “‘Why the fuck are you looking at him?’” The victim
responded by holding “up both of her hands palms up.”
The victim then saw defendant throw a large drinking glass
toward her forehead, hitting her above her left eye. The glass
shattered, causing her to bleed profusely and feel dizzy.
1 The victim identified defendant at trial as the woman who
threw the glass at her. One of the victim’s friends, who was
seated next to her, testified that she saw defendant near their
table just before the incident and believed she threw the glass. A
security guard testified that, immediately after he heard glass
shattering, he turned around and two women pointed out
defendant as the person who threw the glass.
2
Paramedics responded and transported the victim to the hospital
where she received five stitches.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In an information filed on October 6, 2022, the Los Angeles
County District Attorney charged defendant with one count of
assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section
245, subdivision (a)(1).2
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to reduce her offense
to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). The
trial court denied the motion noting that “a great bodily injury
allegation could have been filed” and concluding that “under the
circumstances the charge is appropriately filed.”
Following trial, the jury found defendant guilty of the
charge. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a
middle term of three years, but suspended execution of the
sentence and placed defendant on probation for two years. The
court also ordered defendant to make restitution and imposed
certain fines and assessments.
Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction, and
we appointed counsel to represent her. On June 14, 2024, her
appointed counsel filed an opening brief that did not identify any
arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedure set
forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. On June 17, 2024, we
notified defendant that her appointed appellate counsel had
failed to find any arguable issues and that she had 30 days
within which to brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or
2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3
arguments she wanted us to consider. Defendant did not file a
supplemental brief.
IV. DISCUSSION
We have independently reviewed the record and are
satisfied that defendant’s appointed counsel has complied with
his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
4
V. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J.
We concur:
MOOR, Acting P. J.
DAVIS, J.
 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
5