P. v. Moran
Filed 12/2/08 P. v. Moran CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PABLO LOZANO MORAN, Defendant and Appellant. | H032988 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CC776323) |
Pablo Lozano Moran, the defendant herein, pleaded no contest to theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) He admitted the truth of two allegations subjecting him to punishment under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior prison term enhancement allegations (id., 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court conducted a hearing on defendants motion to dismiss one or both of his two strike priors under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and dismissed one of them in the interest of justice. Thereafter the court sentenced defendant to eight years in state prison as a second-strike offendera doubled term of six years under the Three Strikes law for the current offense (Pen. Code, 18, 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and two years for the prison priors (id., 667.5, subd. (b)).
Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he did not do so.
FACTS
We derive the facts from the probation report. On August 4, 2007, defendant was caught driving a stolen automobile. He denied stealing it, and claimed he had borrowed it from an individual nicknamed Primo. He had no means of contacting Primo and could not describe him. The vehicle had been reported stolen on May 27, 2007. After defendants arrest, the victim was contacted, and she stated that she did not know defendant and had not given him permission to use the vehicle.
Defendants denial of the actual stealing of the vehicle was based on his assertion that on the day the victim reported it stolen he was in jail. He told the probation officer that a friend had lent it to him, and it was on the basis of that transaction that he pleaded no contest to Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), although he was not aware that the vehicle had been stolen.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, keeping in mind that our review is limited to grounds for appeal that occurred after entry of defendants no contest plea and do not affect the pleas validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1), (b)(4)(B).) We agree with counsel for defendant that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
___________________________________
Duffy, J.
WE CONCUR.
______________________________________
Mihara, Acting P. J.
______________________________________
McAdams, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
