Filed 1/15/20 P. v. Davalos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

v.

FRANCISCO DAVALOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

E073320

(Super.Ct.No. 16CR022040)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kyle S. Brodie and Bridgid M. McCann, Judges. Affirmed.

Sally Patrone Brajevich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 10, 2019, an information charged defendant and appellant Francisco Davalos with attempted willful premeditated and deliberate murder under Penal Code sections 665 and 187, subdivision (a) (count 1); aggravated mayhem under Penal Code section (count 2); torture with great bodily injury under Penal Code section 206 (count 3); arson under Penal Code section 451, subdivision (a) (count 4); corporal injury on a cohabitant under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) (count 5); two counts of false imprisonment by violence under Penal Code section 236 (counts 6, 7); and criminal threats under Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a) (count 8).

On June 28, 2019, the information was amended to add a second count of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) (count 10), and a great bodily injury enhancement on count 1 under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a).

On June 28, 2019, defendant pled no contest to attempted murder without premeditation and deliberation under Penal Code sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a) (count 1), and two counts of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant under Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) (counts 5 10). Defendant also admitted the greatly bodily injury enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a), as to count 1.

The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years in state prison. The court awarded defendant 1,334 days of presentence custody credits. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $120 court operations fee under Penal Code section 1465.8 ($40 for each count), and a $90 conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373 ($30 on each count).

On July 26, 2019, defendant filed his notice of appeal “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.” On November 21, 2019, defendant filed a motion to augment the record on appeal. On November 25, 2019, we granted defendant’s motion “and the document copies attached to the motion are DEEMED a part of the record on appeal.”

B. FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 10, 2016, deputies received a call that a man and a naked woman were standing in the front yard of a residence in Rancho Cucamonga. Upon their arrival, they discovered that the victim, S.G., had burns on the majority of her body. The man, later identified as defendant, had burns on his hands. The two were transported to a nearby medical center. The deputies found evidence of an accelerant at the residence and they suspected the victim may have had gas poured over her.

When interviewed at the hospital, defendant first claimed that he had been smoking a cigarette and a bottle of “nitro gasoline” had ignited, burning the victim. Defendant then stated the victim owed him money and as they were arguing the victim poured a bottle of gasoline on herself. Defendant credited himself with saving the victim’s life.

When the victim was interviewed approximately two weeks later on May 24, 2016, she reported on the date in question, defendant made her sit on the floor, put his foot on her chest and pushed her flat onto the floor. He had purchased gasoline for a remote control car; he emptied more than one container on her and on the floor. Defendant then lit a cigarette with the stove burner and then threw his lit cigarette on her, setting her on fire. She got up and ran around the residence attempting to put out the flames. The victim eventually ended up naked in the front yard. She believed defendant was trying to kill her. During the investigation, deputies learned that the victim had experienced domestic violence at the hands of defendant, including that he held her prisoner in the residence; he would drag her around the residence by her hair; throw chili powder in her face, waterboarding, beat her, and “so many” other incidents they could not remember them all.

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:

1. “Whether defendant was improperly denied the opportunity to retain private counsel and replace the public defender to negotiate a plea deal.”

2. “Whether there was error because the trial court did not find a factual basis for the plea in open court and appellant did not admit to one or if the trial court’s finding of a factual basis on the plea form was adequate, and whether the issue can be raised without a certificate of probable cause.”

3. Whether the trial court erred in finding defendant competent to stand trial.

4. Whether the trial court erred improperly imposed fines and fees.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error, considered the issues listed by appellate counsel, and find no arguable issue for reversal on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

FIELDS

J.