P. v. Bell

Filed 10/15/08 P. v. Bell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. F. Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeffrey L. Mason, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On February 27, 2007, defendant stole Christopher Rampones Lincoln Navigator from his home in Manhattan Beach, California. Several days later, defendant was seen with the Lincoln Navigator in a new housing development in Menifee, California. Defendant was also later found to be taking a bath in a new home that had been sold but was still unoccupied. Officers later arrived and were informed there had been a trespass. The officers discovered that the Lincoln Navigator had been stolen. Defendant was apprehended and arrested.

After he waived his constitutional rights, defendant stated that he had entered the home because he needed a bath and did not have money to take a bath at a motel and that a friend from the Los Angeles area had loaned him the car. The owner of the vehicle informed the interviewing officer that he had not given defendant permission to take the vehicle. Defendant then admitted that he did not have permission to take the vehicle.

Defendant was charged with unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, 496d, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor trespassing (Pen. Code, 602, subd. (m)). The information also alleged that defendant had sustained four prior prison terms (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of vehicle theft and trespassing, and not guilty of receiving stolen property. In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms.^[1]

Prior to sentencing, defendants counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendants competency pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. The court ordered the proceedings suspended and defendant be examined to determine his mental competency. Following a hearing, the court found defendant competent to stand trial and the proceedings resumed.

Defendant was sentenced to the upper term of three years for the vehicle theft, plus an additional consecutive one year each for the three prior prison terms, for a total of six years in state prison.^[2] Defendant was awarded a total of 348 (232 actual days plus 116 conduct days) days of presentence custody credits.

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, which he has not done.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P.J.

MILLER

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1] One of the four prior prison terms was dismissed by the People prior to trial on the priors.

^[2] Defendant was sentenced to 30 days for the misdemeanor trespassing offense to be served concurrently with the vehicle theft offense.