P. v. Galindo
Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Galindo CA6
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
DAMIAN BUSTOS GALINDO,
Defendant and
Appellant.
H039721
(Santa Clara
County
Super. Ct.
No. B1263296)
Defendant Damian
Bustos Galindo appeals from a judgment of
conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to vehicle theft with a
prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 666.5) and
officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)).
Defendant also admitted allegations that he suffered a strike prior
within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and
1170.12 as well as a prison prior within the meaning of Penal Code section
667.5, subdivision (b). After denying
defendant’s motion to dismiss the prior strike allegation pursuant to Penal
Code section 1385, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for four
years.
At
approximately 9:14 p.m. on November 6, 2012, officers were on
routine patrol near a house where parolees lived and drug activity
occurred. The officers observed a truck
parked in front of the house. A records
check revealed that the truck had been reported stolen five days earlier. The officers conducted surveillance until
three people, including defendant, exited the house and entered the truck. The officers initiated a felony stop on the
truck and ordered the occupants out of the truck. Defendant exited the truck. After he took a few steps, the officer
ordered him to stop. Defendant, however,
ran across the light rail tracks and into oncoming traffic. Officers and a K-9 unit pursued him and
defendant was eventually apprehended.
After conducting a search of his person, an officer found
marijuana. Since defendant was the
driver of the stolen truck and he matched the description of the individual who
was seen stealing the truck, he was arrested.
During his interview with the officers at the county jail, defendant
stated that he ran from them because he was in possession of marijuana and in
violation of probation. He also stated
that he borrowed the truck from a friend.
Appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief
which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his
own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire
record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The
judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________
Mihara,
J.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.
______________________________
Grover, J.
