P. v. Bray





Filed 6/16/11 P. v. Bray CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONNIE E. BRAY, Defendant and Appellant.

D058534 (Super. Ct. No. SCD225863)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.

On July 12, 2010, Ronnie Bray pleaded guilty to Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), the unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, and admitted a first degree burglary prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, 667, subds. (b) - (i), 1170.12.) The trial court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the balance of the complaint, including one count of receiving stolen property, a prison prior and two other sentencing enhancements.[1] The court indicated its intention to select the lower term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of the prior strike. At sentencing the court imposed a term of 32 months, along with Penal Code section 4019 credits and various fines.
FACTS[2]
On February 28, 2010, at about 2:00 a.m., Matthew Scheer, the registered owner of a 2008 Honda Civic, last saw his vehicle parked in front of his apartment in San Diego. About 10:00 a.m., he noticed the vehicle was missing and contacted the police.
That evening, two San Diego police officers stopped Bray who was driving Scheer's vehicle within the city of San Diego. Prior to the stop, one of the officers had conducted a records check using a computer system in his vehicle and determined that the vehicle had been reported stolen. When the officers contacted Bray, he told the officers he knew he was being stopped because he was in a stolen vehicle. Scheer did not know the appellant and did not give him permission to drive his car. A records check at the scene revealed that Bray had three adult arrests and two juvenile arrests for violating Vehicle Code section 10851 and an adult arrest for burglary.
After the preliminary hearing, the court granted Bray's request that he be permitted to represent himself. While representing himself, Bray filed numerous motions, including a motion to dismiss (Pen. Code, § 995), a discovery motion, a Pitchess[3] motion, and a Penal Code section 1538.5 motion.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to one possible, but not arguable issue: whether appellant was sentenced in accordance with his guilty plea agreement. We granted Bray permission to file a brief on his own and he has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Bray on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:



McINTYRE, J.



AARON, J.

---