legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Garcia

P. v. Garcia
24/05/13






P








P. v. Garcia













Filed 5/13/13 P. v. Garcia CA2/2















NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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



SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO




>






THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff
and Respondent,



v.



JESSY GARCIA,



Defendant
and Appellant.




B240768



(Los
Angeles County

Super. Ct.
No. PA071777)




THE COURT:href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">*



Jessy
Garcia (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction
by jury of one count of second degree
burglary of a vehicle
(Pen. Code,

§ 459).href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[1]> Defendant admitted the truth
of an allegation under section 667.5,

subdivision (b) that he suffered a 2009 conviction for a violation of section
69, resisting an executive officer.

The
trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years plus a consecutive
year for the prior conviction allegation, to be served in county jail. The trial court granted defendant 167 days of
actual credit and 167 days of conduct credits.
The court ordered victim restitution in the sum of $180.

We
appointed counsel to represent
defendant on this appeal. After
examination of the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an
acknowledgment that he had been unable to find any arguable issues. On January
15, 2013, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to
personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

The
record shows that Maria Ortiz was waiting to exit a driveway in her truck when
she saw defendant breaking the rear passenger window of a parked car. She saw defendant, who wore a blue backpack,
extract a black backpack and a plastic bag from the car. She called 911 and began following defendant,
who was riding a bicycle. She lost him
momentarily while still on the line with the dispatcher but then saw defendant
again inside a pedestrian tunnel. Ortiz
told the dispatcher she had found defendant.
Ortiz watched as defendant examined the contents of the black
backpack. When police arrived, defendant
rode rapidly toward them on his bicycle.
He suddenly turned into a residence and dropped the bicycle. Ignoring police commands to stop, defendant
ran into the house, through the kitchen, and outside a rear door with police in
pursuit. Evidence later showed that the
house was defendant’s residence.

Police
followed defendant over a wall and saw him enter a chicken coop. After approximately two minutes, he fled from
the coop. Police later found a blue
backpack, an iPod, and headphones near the chicken coop. The owner of the burglarized car identified
these items and a black backpack as his property. Police also found a motorcycle glove inside
the backpack.

After
defendant fled, police set up a perimeter and deployed canine units. A police dog alerted to a trailer in a
neighbor’s backyard. Defendant did not
reply to calls for him to exit the trailer and surrender, and the police dog
was sent inside the trailer. The dog put
a bite hold on defendant’s arm.
Defendant was arrested and taken to a hospital. A spark plug was found in defendant’s
pocket. A police officer testified that
spark plugs are often used to break automobile window glass.

Ortiz
positively identified defendant at the preliminary
hearing
, at trial, and in a photographic lineup. She expressed slight doubt at the field
showup because defendant was not wearing a shirt. A shirt found in the area of the trailer
where defendant hid was offered to him during the booking process. Defendant at first denied it was his, but
then claimed the shirt. Defense motions
to exclude defendant’s pre-Mirandahref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[2]>
statements about his ownership of the shirt and the evidence
of the canine handler were denied.

We
have examined the entire record, and we are satisfied that defendant’s attorney
has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">arguable issues exist. (People
v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)


The
judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTS
.







id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">* BOREN, P.J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.



id=ftn2>

href="#_ftnref2"
name="_ftn2" title="">[1]>
All further statutory
references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

id=ftn3>

href="#_ftnref3"
name="_ftn3" title="">[2]> Miranda
v.
Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.






Bookmark and Share


Description Jessy Garcia (defendant) appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by jury of one count of second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen. Code,
§ 459).[1] Defendant admitted the truth of an allegation under section 667.5,
subdivision (b) that he suffered a 2009 conviction for a violation of section 69, resisting an executive officer.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years plus a consecutive year for the prior conviction allegation, to be served in county jail. The trial court granted defendant 167 days of actual credit and 167 days of conduct credits. The court ordered victim restitution in the sum of $180.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2021 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2021 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale