IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)
February 5, 2013
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
RODOLFO MADRIGAL MARTINEZ, JR., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. CM034213)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Martinez
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Rodolfo Madrigal Martinez, Jr., asked this court to review the record to determine if there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
Defendant was seen stabbing another man in downtown Chico. A police officer dispatched to the scene found that Gerardo Solozaro had an arm injury consistent with having been stabbed. Solozaro told the officer he had been in a fight and he did not want anything done about his injury.
Solozaro previously admitted to police that he was a member of the Norteno gang. He had tattoos associated with the Nortenos.
A police detective testified as an expert on gangs. The expert opined that defendant was a member of the Sureno gang based on the fact that defendant wore a blue shirt on the night of the stabbing (a color associated with the Surenos), he had tattoos associated with the Surenos, and he was living with an active Sureno gang member at the time of the incident. The expert further opined that stabbing a Norteno gang member in public would benefit the Sureno gang.
A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true an enhancement allegation that he committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)). The trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 432 days of presentence credit (288 actual days and 144 conduct days).
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are 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 the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.*fn1
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. MURRAY , J.