P. v. Phimmasone
Filed 3/5/13 P. v. Phimmasone CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT
OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
AI PHIMMASONE,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062561
(Super. Ct.
No. SCD240227)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Joan P. Weber, Judge.
Affirmed.
Ai
Phimmasone was convicted by a jury of felony evading a police officer (Veh.
Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).)
allegations he had served four prior prison terms (Pen. Code § 667.5) and
a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court denied Phimmasone's motion under
sentenced him to a prison term of nine years, consisting of the upper term of
three years doubled for the current offense under the three strikes law (Pen.
Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), plus three additional consecutive one-year
terms for three of Phimmasone's prior prison terms; the court struck the
one-year enhancement for the fourth prior prison term because it was based on
the prior strike conviction. Phimmasone
appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On April 6, 2012, Officer Luth and his
partner were driving a marked patrol car and began following a car driven by
Phimmasone. Phimmasone made an unsafe
left turn at a T-intersection and was speeding in violation of section
22350. After Phimmasone ignored a stop
sign in violation of section 22450, subdivision (a), Luth activated his lights
and siren; Phimmasone did not stop but instead accelerated. After making a wide left turn, Phimmasone
lost control of the car and drove into a yard.
He drove across the yards of other houses before crashing into a flatbed
trailer. He then fled on foot, with Luth
and his partner in pursuit, and did not heed shouted demands from Luth to
stop. Although Luth lost sight of
Phimmasone, other officers, responding to Luth's earlier request for
assistance, set up a perimeter and apprehended Phimmasone.
DISCUSSION
Appointed
appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings
below. Counsel presents no argument for
reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.
arguable, issues: (1) whether the instructions concerning
evidence and the evading offense were adequate; (2)
whether it was error not to give a unanimity instruction or a lesser included
offense instruction; (3) whether Phimmasone received ineffective assistance of
counsel; (4) whether denial of Phimmasone's motion under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 was error; (5) whether
Phimmasone was adequately advised of his rights when he waived trial on and
admitted the prior prison terms and prior strike allegations; and (6) whether
denial of Phimmasone's Romero motion
was an abuse of discretion.
We granted Phimmasone permission to
file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not
responded. A review of the record
pursuant to People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California,
supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably
arguable appellate issues, and Phimmasone has been competently represented by
counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD,
J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE,
Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further
statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified.
