P. v.
Filed 7/29/13 P. v. Montgomery 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SONNY WILLIAM
MONTGOMERY,
Defendant and Appellant.
C072480
(Super. Ct. Nos. 11F7199, 12F679 & 12F795)
Appointed
counsel for defendant Sonny William Montgomery has asked this court to review
the record to determine whether there exist any
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Defendant
pleaded no contest to possession of
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); case No.
11F7199, count one), unlawful taking of a
vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851; case No. 12F679, count one),
Code,
§§ 459, 460, subd. (b); case No. 12F795, count one), and resisting an
officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); case No. 12F795, count three). Defendant admitted a prior serious felony
allegation. (§§ 667, subds.
(b)-(i), 1170.12.) In exchange, several
related counts and enhancements were dismissed along with two unrelated cases
(Nos. 11F8159, 12F2445), the last with a
The trial
court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the prior strike and sentenced him
to prison for five years four months, awarded 44 days of custody credit and 44
days of conduct credit, and ordered him to pay a $1,920 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4), a $1,920 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked
(§ 1202.45), a $190 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11372.5, subd. (a)) including penalty assessments, a $160 court
operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $120 court facilities
assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $38 theft fine (§ 1202.5)
including penalty assessments.
Case No. 11F7199
On November 8, 2011, a Redding police
officer was dispatched to a convenience store to investigate possible narcotics
sales. Upon arrival, he contacted
defendant who admitted that he was on probation and was determined to have
warrants for his arrest. A probation
search yielded a hypodermic needle and two baggies of methamphetamine that each
weighed 0.4 grams.
Case No. 12F679
On the
morning of January 14, 2012,
Redding police received a report that a car had been stolen from a department
store. The victim stated that, after
parking and locking her car, she entered the store and lost her car keys while
shopping. When she
returned to the parking lot the car was gone. A store employee told police that an unknown
male had found the keys and had turned them in to her. A short time later, the same male approached
a counter and told the employee he had lost his keys. He described the keys correctly, so the
employee gave the keys to him. The next
day, a Redding police officer located the stolen car at a motel. Defendant and a female associate were
nearby. Defendant matched the
description of the person in the department store surveillance video from the
previous day. Upon investigation,
defendant was arrested for stealing the car and property belonging to the car’s
owner was found on his person.
Case No. 12F795
As a result
of a burglar alarm on February 6, 2012,
Redding police were dispatched to an auto body and painting shop. An arriving officer saw defendant leaving the
building with several items in his hands.
Upon observing the officers, defendant fled on foot, but he was
apprehended following a chase. He
admitted to burglarizing the building, telling officers he was looking for
valuables because he needed money.
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. (Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel
advised defendant 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.
The
judgment is affirmed.
DUARTE , J.
We concur:
MURRAY , Acting P. J.
HOCH , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further undesignated statutory references are
to the Penal Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
