Filed 12/13/18 P. v. Frolander CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Trenten Charles Frolander (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to, and was found guilty of, the felony offenses of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800). He admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

On November 7, 2017, an amended criminal complaint was filed charging defendant and codefendant Klark Deziray Hopkins with assault of a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c); count 1), evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 2), misdemeanor driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601, subd. (a); count 3), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800; count 4). The complaint also alleged defendant had previously been convicted of two serious felonies (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)), had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and had suffered two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)–(i)).

The complaint was based on an incident that occurred on September 1, 2017. According to the probation report, at about 9:20 a.m. that day, defendant was a passenger in a car driven by codefendant Hopkins. A police officer in a patrol car saw the car cross over a diagonal white line and pass the patrol car illegally on the shoulder of the road. The officer activated his patrol car lights and attempted to stop the car, but it sped away. The car traveled over 50 miles per hour on various residential streets until it came to a stop at a dead end street.

As the officer pulled up behind the car, the car moved in reverse towards the patrol car and stopped just before striking it. The car then “did a 3-point turn,” and the officer saw defendant lean over Hopkins and turn the steering wheel as it began to move forward again and accelerate quickly. As the car sped away, it once again went through residential areas, traveling at over 55 miles per hour and nearly hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

The car then entered Highway 29 and began traveling in excess of 80, then 100 miles, per hour. The car was weaving in and out of traffic, traveling at times on the shoulder and between lanes. The officer attempted to stop the car by striking it from behind with his patrol car, but the car continued on to Highway 80, again traveling at more than 100 miles per hour on the right lane and shoulder of the road.

The car exited the highway in Fairfield and, with police still in pursuit, continued traveling at speeds between 60 and 100 miles per hour. The car then “suddenly stopped” after again entering the highway. As an officer removed defendant from the car, defendant said that Hopkins—who was shaking—was having a seizure. Hopkins spontaneously said that defendant had pointed a gun at her and told her he would shoot her if she did not drive, and that he had thrown the gun out the window. Hopkins was transported to a hospital. Police estimated that “the overall pursuit traveled approximately 25-30 miles and lasted about 16 minutes.”

When police later interviewed Hopkins at the hospital, she said that at the time they were first spotted by police, she and defendant were on their way to pick up some marijuana from someone named Claude. She explained that defendant threatened her with a gun and told her to drive because he was on parole for robbery and there was a warrant for his arrest. After defendant threw the gun out the window, he called Claude and told him to retrieve the gun. When they were stopped at the dead end street, defendant took control of the steering wheel and told Hopkins the police would shoot her if she stopped. She continued to drive because she was scared.

Later, when Hopkins arrived at the jail, she reiterated that defendant had forced her to drive away from police by threatening her. She said she was not trying to hit the patrol car, but that they were simply trying to flee.

When defendant was arrested, he told police he was going to go to prison “for life.” He banged his head on the metal partition in the patrol car several times and was taken to a hospital for treatment. Defendant said he had been trying to get Hopkins to pull over onto the shoulder and to stop.

Officers searched for the gun that Hopkins said defendant threw out of the car window. Their investigation led them to Claude Ector, who told police that defendant had called to ask him to retrieve “something” he had discarded. Ector found a loaded gun with a round in the chamber and a full magazine, and “ ‘stashed it’ ” in a fireplace. Officers found the gun, which was a 9mm pistol with a laser sight affixed to the bottom of the barrel.

Defendant moved for new counsel twice under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, and the trial court denied both motions. Thereafter, on November 7, 2017, defendant pleaded no contest to evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 2) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800; count 4). He admitted he had suffered a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). He executed a waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 as to the charge of assault of a police officer.

At sentencing, the trial court accepted the plea, dismissed the remaining counts and special allegations, and sentenced defendant to a five-year term consisting of the two-year middle term for evading a police officer, doubled for the prior strike (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)–(i)), plus one year for the prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court ordered defendant to pay $3,243.72 as restitution to the City of American Canyon for damage to a police vehicle. Trial counsel reserved the right to contest the amount of restitution after receiving documentation of the claim. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and imposed and suspended a restitution fine in the same amount (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). The court also imposed an $80 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and a $60 conviction assessment (Govt. Code, § 70373).

Discussion

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to independently review the entire record to determine if it contains any issues which would, if resolved favorably to defendant, result in reversal or modification. We have examined the entire record and have found no reasonably arguable appellate issue, and we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Jenkins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Siggins, P. J.

_________________________

Fujisaki, J.

A153300/People v. Trenten Charles Frolander