P.v . Carrion
Filed 6/24/08 P.v . Carrion CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN ANDREW CARRION, Defendant and Appellant. | F053917 (Super. Ct. No. VCF176298B) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. James W. Hollman, Judge.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
A jury convicted appellant Martin Carrion of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); count 1), possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 3) and driving without a valid license (Veh. Code, 12500, subd. (a); count 5). In a separate proceeding, appellant admitted allegations that he had suffered a strike[1]and that he had served three separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667.5. subd. (b)). The court imposed a prison term of seven years, consisting of the two-year midterm on count 1, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), plus one year for each of the three prior prison term enhancements. On count 3, the court imposed a concurrent term of four years, consisting of the two-year midterm, doubled, and the court imposed no time on count 5.
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
FACTS
In December 2006, Lucia Cruz took her car, a green Honda, to an auto repair shop for some repair work. She did not give anyone permission to drive the car away from the shop. Appellant worked at the shop, performing maintenance duties. On January 2, 2007, Rumaldo Carrillo, who worked at the shop, noticed Cruzs car was missing and reported it stolen.
City of Dinuba Police Sergeant Thaddeus Ashford was on patrol on January 2, 2007, when he saw appellant, who was known to the sergeant, driving a green Honda Accord. There was also a passenger in the car. Upon noticing that the registration had expired, Sergeant Ashford effected a stop of the car and called for assistance.
Sergeant Ashford made contact with appellant, and asked him for his drivers license, registration and proof of insurance. The sergeant testified that appellant didnt have them.
Thereafter, Officer Dion Dorado and two other officers arrived on the scene. At that point Sergeant Ashford had appellant and the passenger get out of the car and sit on the curb, and the sergeant and Officer Dorado conducted an inventory search of the Honda. During the search, Officer Dorado found a loaded .38 caliber handgun, between the drivers seat and the center console, and a second handgun underneath the front passenger seat, and Sergeant Ashford found several rounds of ammunition.
The Honda appellant was driving was appellants car.
The parties stipulated appellant had previously been convicted of a felony.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Gomes, J.
[1] We use the term strike as a synonym for prior felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.
