P. v. Bustamante

Filed 6/16/08 P. v. Bustamante CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Carol Ash, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant, Michael A. Bustamante, was charged by an information filed March 6, 2007, with two felonies: vehicle theft (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d). It was also alleged in the information that appellant had suffered a strike^[1]and that he had served a prison term for a prior felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

On June 28, 2007, appellant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to receiving a stolen vehicle and admitted the strike allegation. One of the terms of the plea agreement was that appellant would receive a 32-month prison sentence.

On August 9, 2007, the court imposed a prison sentence of 32 months, consisting of the 16-month lower term, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)).

Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.

The report of the probation officer (RPO) indicates that on September 4, 2006, a City of Merced police officer made contact with the victim, who told the officer the following. His trailer had been stolen the previous day. He had been on his way to the police department to report the theft when he realized the department was closed for a holiday. He was on his way home when he saw the trailer parked in front of a residence. The RPO further states that the officer went to the residence and made contact with appellant, who stated he got the trailer from a friend two days earlier. After the officer confirmed the trailer belonged to the victim, appellant was arrested.      

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Kane, J.

^[1] We use the term strike as a synonym for prior felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.