P. v. Salazar
Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Salazar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
OMAR SALAZAR,
Defendant
and Appellant.
E056650
(Super.Ct.No.
FSB1103522)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of
Bernardino County.
Micheal R. Libutti, Judge.
Affirmed.
Jamie
Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On
August 4, 2011, a felony
complaint charged defendant and appellant Omar Salazar with four felony counts
of child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a,
subd. (a), counts 1-4); one felony count of evading
an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 5); and one misdemeanor
count of being a habitual traffic
offender (Veh. Code, § 14601.3, subd. (a), count 6).
On
February 16, 2012,
defendant pleaded no contest to evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd.
(a), count 5); resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 69, added count 7); and a
nonstrike assault by means likely to inflict great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(1), added count 8). In
exchange, the parties agreed to a term of three years in state prison for each
count to run concurrent. The other
charges were dismissed, as well as defendant’s other cases.
On
June 18, 2012, the trial
court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of three years in state prison
for each count, and ordered defendant to pay a $240 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4),
and a $240 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), stayed unless
parole is revoked.
On
July 6, 2012, defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal from
his sentence or other matters after the plea.
The
parties stipulated to the police reports as a factual basis for defendant’s
plea.
A
police officer turned on his vehicle lights to effectuate a traffic stop on
defendant. The officer blocked an exit
to the parking lot where his patrol vehicle and defendant’s vehicle were
located. Defendant backed up and then
sped forward slightly toward the driver’s side of the officer’s vehicle. The officer believed defendant was trying to
get around his patrol vehicle. Defendant
then exited the parking lot onto a street at a high rate of speed. There was a three-to-four minute pursuit. Another officer discovered defendant’s
vehicle and initiated a traffic stop.
Defendant’s wife was driving and defendant’s children were in the
backseat of the vehicle. Defendant was
not in the vehicle. Defendant’s wife
gave the officer defendant’s cell phone number.
The officer called the number and defendant answered. Defendant told the officer that he failed to
stop for police because he knew he was wanted on a warrant. Defendant refused to return to the scene,
however, he was subsequently arrested.
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
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
KING
J.
