P. v. Mayo
Filed 5/30/13 P. v. Mayo CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
HOWARD MAYO,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E057858
(Super.Ct.No.
FBA1200727)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of
Bernardino County.
Victor R. Stull, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick
J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On
December 17, 2012, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Howard
Mayo with petty theft having suffered three prior convictions in violation of
Penal Code sections 666, subdivision (a), and 484, subdivision (a) (count 1),
and second degree commercial burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459
(count 2). The complaint also alleged
four prison priors under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On
December 26, 2012,
defendant pled guilty to count 2, second degree commercial burglary. The plea agreement provided that defendant
would waive a probation report, be immediately sentenced, and receive a
stipulated term of three years in county prison, to run concurrent with any
other pending matters. The balance of
the complaint was to be dismissed, including the four prison priors.
Immediately
after defendant’s plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to county prison
for the term of three years, to run concurrent with any other sentence. The trial court also dismissed count 1 and
the four priors were stricken. The trial
court gave defendant credit for 14 days of actual custody plus 14 days of
section 4019 conduct credits, for a total of 28 days. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a
restitution fine of $264 and a revocation fine of $264, which was stayed. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay
a court operations assessment fee of $70.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal on January 10, 2013. The trial court granted defendant’s request
for a certificate of probable cause.
Since
defendant pled guilty, the statement of facts is taken from the Barstow Police
Department’s reports.
On December 13, 2012, officers of the Barstow Police
Department were conducting a search for a vehicle that had been reported stolen
in the area of the 1300 block of Barstow Road. Officers entered the alleyway behind 1391
Barstow Road.
They observed a Black male, later identified as defendant, wearing a
bulging jean jacket, walking out from the back of some commercial
establishments. When defendant looked in
the direction of the officers, he immediately turned and ran southbound. Officers gave chase, caught up with
defendant, and ordered him to stop. When
Officer Cardenas was approaching defendant, the officer saw defendant
attempting to hide several items. These
items consisted of dominoes, DVD movies, coffee, candy, and dish soap. Following a brief conversation, defendant
admitted that he had taken the items from a nearby dollar store.
Officers contacted the manager of
the dollar store. She identified
defendant as someone who regularly caused problems inside the store. The manager also identified the stolen items
as being from the store. The total value
of the items was $52.78. Defendant
admitted to Officer Cardenas that he intended to steal the items when he
entered the store.
After defendant appealed,
and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority
of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and
potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of
the entire record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of
the record and find no arguable issues.
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
P.
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
