P. v. Garcia






Filed 9/26/11 P. v. Garcia CA5









NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FELIPE GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.

F061739 (Super. Ct. No. PCF244732B) OPINION

THE COURT^*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Ronn M. Couillard, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Tulare Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Felipe Garcia, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled no contest to a charge of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and admitted an allegation that he had suffered a “strike,” i.e., a “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12.) The court imposed the agreed-upon sentence, viz., 32 months in prison, 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)). Appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
Appellant’s 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
FACTS^[1]
On November 11, 2010, City of Porterville police officers, investigating a report of suspects breaking into a sport utility vehicle (SUV), made contact with a witness who told the officers the following: He was standing approximately 100 feet away from an SUV that was parked in a motel parking lot when he saw a person strike the driver’s side window of the vehicle with what appeared to be rock, shattering the window. The person got into the SUV and handed to appellant, who was outside the vehicle, what appeared to be a suitcase and other items. The witness approached a person who was standing outside a restaurant near the motel, and asked the person to call the police.
Thereafter, police arrived on the scene and took appellant and Alex Mabalot into custody. Appellant and Mabalot had in their possession items that had been taken from the SUV.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

---