P. v. Lorenz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/18/13  P. v. Lorenz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Butte)

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   STEPHEN ARTHUR LORENZ, JR.,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C072891   (Super. Ct. No. CM035850)

 

 

 

            On January 23, 2012, at about 6:17 a.m., a Chico Police Department officer
was dispatched to a report of a prowler outside an apartment complex.  The officer found defendant Stephen Arthur
Lorenz, Jr., near the complex’s entrance. 
Defendant matched the physical description of the prowler, and a
flat-screen television was sitting on the ground next to where he was first
found.  The officer obtained defendant’s
identification and learned he was a former Norteño gang member, a prior
parolee, and had a history of resisting
arrest and weapons violations.

            Defendant
said he was moving the television to a storage unit and had spent the night in
the complex with his friend Toby. 
Defendant refused to provide Toby’s last name or apartment number.  The officer then conducted a patdown search,
which discovered a knife and a handgun holster. 
After defendant admitted having a handgun, the officer removed a
.44-caliber revolver from defendant’s left front pants pocket.  Defendant had two prior felony convictions.

            Defendant
pleaded no contest to felon in possession
of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).  Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to
represent himself, which the trial court granted after determining he knowingly
and intelligently waived his right to appointed counsel.

            Defendant
subsequently filed a motion to withdraw
the plea, alleging he had been informed he would be placed on probation as part
of the plea, but the probation report recommended a state prison sentence.  The trial court denied the motion.  Defendant represented himself at sentencing,
where the trial court placed defendant on three years’ formal probation,
subject to various terms and conditions.

            Defendant
obtained a certificate of probable cause
and 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
elapsed, and we 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.

 

 

                                                                            BLEASE                             , J.

 

 

We
concur:

 

 

                RAYE                                 , P.
J.

 

 

                HULL                                 ,
J.