P. v. Canela

P. v. Canela













Filed 3/30/10
P. v. Canela CA1/5









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 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

FIRST APPELLATE
DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE







THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and
Respondent, A126593



v. ( >Contra > Costa >County >

Super.
Ct. No. 050809350)

JESUS JOSE CANELA,



Defendant and
Appellant.

/





Jesus Jose
Canela appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct
an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had
the right to file a supplemental brief
on his own behalf. Appellant declined to
exercise that right.

On November 13, 2007, shortly before 1:15 p.m., Richmond Police Detective Miguel
Castillo was on patrol when he heard a report of a stolen vehicle. When Castillo arrived at the location
indicated, he saw a car driving toward him.
It was going between 35 and 40 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour
zone. The driver was a Hispanic man in
his mid 20s with a mustache and goatee who was wearing a brown baseball cap and
a black T-shirt.

Detective
Castillo wanted to stop the car for a speeding violation, however, he lost
sight of it before he could do so.
Castillo decided to circle the area for a few minutes looking for the
car and its driver. About a minute and a
half later, Castillo saw appellant walking down the street. He resembled the driver of the speeding car.

Detective
Castillo was alone and appellant was larger than he was. Therefore, when Castillo got out of his
patrol car, he ordered appellant to place his hands in the air. Appellant complied. When a cover officer arrived about two
minutes later, Castillo put handcuffs on appellant and placed him in the back
of his patrol car.

Detective
Castillo asked appellant to identify himself.
Appellant said his name was Jose Canela and that his birth date was January 19, 1986. Castillo called that information into
dispatch. That combination did not match
any information in the system.

Detective
Castillo left with another officer to try to find the car that appellant had
been driving. Castillo located it in a
parking lot within two minutes. Its hood
was still warm. Castillo called the
car’s license number into dispatch which confirmed the car had been reported as
stolen.

Based on
these facts, an information was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, the
offense noted above. As is relevant
here, the information also alleged appellant had a prior theft conviction. (Pen. Code, § 666.5.)

Appellant
filed a motion to suppress. He conceded
his initial detention by Detective Castillo was justified, but he argued the
detention was unduly prolonged and had been transformed into an illegal arrest. The trial court conducted a hearing on
appellant’s motion and denied it.

In light of
that ruling appellant decided to enter into a plea bargain. He pleaded no contest to the offense we have
set forth above and admitted the prior theft allegation. In exchange appellant was to receive a
sentence that was calculated as part of the sentence imposed in a different
case.

Subsequently,
the court imposed the sentence to which the parties had agreed.

We have
reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to
be argued.

The trial
court correctly denied the motion to
suppress. (People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 537-540.)

Before
accepting appellant’s plea, the court made sure appellant understood the
Constitutional rights that he was waiving.

The
sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain.

Appellant
was effectively represented by counsel.

We conclude
there are no arguable issues within
the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436. (See also
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

The judgment is affirmed.









_

Jones,
P.J.





We concur:



_

Simons, J.



_

Needham, J.



Publication courtesy of San
Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case
Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com