Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Orozco was prosecuted for events in September 2024 involving Maria R., whom he was dating. Maria R. testified that after another man texted her, Orozco became enraged, punched and spat on her, and then drove her to a beach, where he continued beating her in his car. Her teenage daughter Denise photographed bruising on Maria R.'s eye, neck, and back a couple of days later. Maria R. also described two earlier attacks: in December 2023 Orozco threw her to the ground and kicked and punched her, and in 2020 he held a boxcutter to her neck and scratched her with a kitchen knife. Denise testified that on the September 2024 day, Orozco confronted her, argued, and briefly pinned her to a wall by her neck before she fled; she was the one who called police to their home in October 2024.
The jury deliberated fewer than two hours and convicted Orozco of injuring a girlfriend (Penal Code § 273.5, subd. (a)), while acquitting him of battery against Denise (§ 242). Orozco waived a jury trial on his prior convictions and aggravating factors. The court found prior felony convictions for assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment by violence, felon in possession, and robbery, two of which were strikes under the Three Strikes law, and found four aggravating factors true. In May 2025 the court denied his motion to dismiss the strikes, selected the five-year upper term under section 273.5(f), doubled it with a strike to 10 years in prison, issued a 10-year protective order covering Maria R. and Denise, and imposed fines and fees.
Orozco appealed. His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking for independent review under People v. Wende. The court denied Orozco's request for new appellate counsel, and after counsel filed a declaration about the record, the court examined the entire record and the issues Orozco raised.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. On ineffective assistance, Orozco pointed to the public defender who withdrew two weeks after his oral Marsden motion and before the trial continuance. The court held he demonstrated no arguable issue that this short-lived representation prejudiced him, as an ineffective-assistance claim requires.
The court rejected his evidentiary challenges by distinguishing the jury trial from the later bench trial on priors and aggravators. His 2022 convictions appeared only in the bench proceeding, where they were appropriately central because prior convictions can support an upper-term sentence and are a listed aggravating circumstance. The jury instead heard limited testimony from Maria R. about earlier violence against her, plus related photos, which the court held proper under Evidence Code section 1109; the trial court had guarded against unfair prejudice by limiting that evidence pretrial. Orozco showed no abuse of discretion under sections 352 and 1109.
The judicial-bias claim failed on two grounds. Orozco forfeited it by never raising bias in the trial court, and the record showed no extreme facts showing the judge's sentencing comments denied him a fair trial. The remarks responded to Orozco's leniency letter, which was not in the appellate record, and reflected his years of violence against Maria R. and his unbroken criminal history. The court concluded appointed counsel fully complied with Wende and that no arguable issues existed.
Key Takeaways
- In a Wende review, the appellate court may consider issues the defendant raises himself and affirm after independently finding no arguable issues.
- Ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice; Orozco showed no prejudice from the public defender's brief representation.
- Evidence Code section 1109 permitted limited testimony and photographs of Orozco's prior domestic violence against the same victim.
- Prior felony convictions used only in the bench trial on priors and aggravating factors were properly kept from the jury and supported the upper-term sentence.
- A judicial-bias claim not raised in the trial court is forfeited, and the sentencing remarks did not establish the extreme prejudice a due process violation requires.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves intact Orozco's domestic violence conviction, doubled 10-year sentence, protective order, and financial penalties, and shows how the court handles a no-issue brief alongside a defendant's own complaints about counsel, evidence, and sentencing.
It also underscores the distinction between evidence presented to the jury and evidence the judge considers in a later priors proceeding, and the forfeiture and extreme-facts standards that defeated the judicial-bias claim.