P. v. Knight
Filed 1/07/09 P. v. Knight CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCUS BENJAMIN KNIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. | C057838 (Super. Ct. No. 62-067529) |
On January 5, 2007, at around 12:45 a.m., defendant Marcus Benjamin Knight, William Whaley, and Marcus Powell drove to the Thunder Valley Casino in Whaleys new Lexus IS-250. The car was parked in the valet section, and the three stayed at the casino for one and one-half to two hours. During his stay, defendant had four or five double shots of Jagermeister.
After they finished gambling, defendant went to the valet parking section, where he discussed with Whaley whether they should take a taxi home. Defendant noticed a nearby Porsche, and suggested they should take this car home. Whaley thought defendant was joking, and walked away. Defendant then entered the Porsche and drove off. The incident was captured on videotape by the casino.
The Porsche, a purple 2001 Carrera, was owned by Joseph Guidera. On the night of the incident, Guidera took the Carrera and drove with his wife to the casino, leaving it at valet parking sometime between midnight and 1:00 a.m., with the keys in the car. They neither knew defendant nor gave him permission to drive the car.
Taking a cab home from the casino, Whaley found the Porsche in the parking lot of his apartment complex. Defendant entered the apartment and told Whaleys roommate he had just stolen a Porsche, which was parked downstairs. Defendant, who appeared very intoxicated, also told the roommate he would have the roommate and his girlfriend taken care of if either of them went to the police.
Defendant slept at the apartment before leaving on his motorcycle. In a subsequent phone interview with a California Highway Patrol officer, defendant admitted taking the Porsche and agreed to turn himself in after talking to an attorney. Defendant never turned himself in.
Testifying at trial, defendant denied going to the casino or taking the Porsche. He claimed Whaley and his roommate lied about the theft because of an incident between defendant and Whaley a few months earlier.
A jury convicted defendant of unlawful driving or taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) The court sentenced defendant to a low term of 16 months in state prison, imposed a $400 restitution fine, and stayed a $400 restitution fine pending successful completion of parole.
Defendant appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
HULL, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
