IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
August 16, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
SHELLY CHAVARRIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF111917A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
P. v. Chavarria 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Following a jury trial, in which she was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and causing great bodily injury, defendant Shelly Chavarria was sentenced to six years in state prison.
Defendant's ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offenses and the proceedings in the trial court.
Defendant Shelly Chavarria and victim Christine N. met through common friends and had known each other for a couple weeks. They would meet with friends to use drugs, particularly to smoke methamphetamine. In May 2009, defendant, Christine N. and a few other people were at an apartment smoking methamphetamine and drinking beer. Later in the day, Christine N. sat down in front of a computer and a few seconds later, her head was pulled back and she saw blood. Her neck was being slit. She did not see her assailant, but believed it was defendant because defendant was the only person behind her. Christine N.'s boyfriend, also at the apartment saw defendant pull Christine N.'s head back and cut her throat. Christine N. spent two days in the hospital with a laceration to her neck and some damage to the muscles. At the time of trial, she still had a scar on her neck.
Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.) The information also alleged she personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) Criminal proceedings were suspended due to questions about defendant's competence to stand trial. After being evaluated, defendant was found not competent to stand trial and committed to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) at Patton State Hospital. (§ 1368.) About a year after her commitment, the DMH filed a certificate attesting to defendant's competence and counsel stipulated to a determination based on that certificate. (§ 1372.) Accordingly, the trial court found defendant's competence to stand trial restored.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and the enhancement allegation was found true. Defendant was sentenced to three years on the assault with a consecutive three-year sentence imposed for the enhancement allegation. Various fines and fees were imposed. Defendant was awarded 609 days of custody credit.
We note that, because defendant was convicted of a violent felony, she is not eligible for the additional credits under the amendments to sections 4019 and 2933.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking us to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the 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. We have undertaken an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.