Jenkinson
Filed 2/15/13 P. v. Jenkinson CA5
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
DAVID
LEON JENKINSON,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F064475
(Super.
Ct. No. BF138620A)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
Syda
Kosofsky and Deanna F. Lamb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
It was alleged in an information filed December 2, 2011,
that appellant, David Leon Jenkinson, committed the following offenses: driving under the influence of a drug and/or
an alcoholic beverage (DUI) (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) within ten years of
suffering two prior convictions of the same offense (Veh. Code, § 23550), a
felony; unlawful possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11364), a misdemeanor; and failing to perform a legal duty following an
accident causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), a
misdemeanor. It was also alleged in the
information that appellant had served four separate prison terms for prior
felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
On January
30, 2012, prior to the commencement of trial, appellant admitted the prior DUI
conviction allegations.
On February
2, 2012, a jury convicted appellant of the three charged offenses, and later
that day, in a separate proceeding, the court found true the four prior prison
term enhancement allegations.
On March 5,
2012, the court imposed a prison sentence of seven years, consisting of the
three-year upper term on the DUI conviction and one year on each of the four
prior prison term enhancement allegations.
On each of the two misdemeanor counts, the court imposed concurrent
30-day county jail terms, with credit of 30 days served.
Appellant’s 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. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit
additional briefing.
FACTS
Crystal Brley testified to the
following. At approximately 6:40 p.m. on
September 8, 2011 (September 8), she was sitting in her car, completely
stopped at a red light, when she heard a sound and felt her car move forward
“like [it] was going … 15, 20 miles an hour .…†She looked in her rear-view mirror, saw a
white Toyota Camry behind her and realized she had been rear-ended. At that point, the Toyota backed up and then
drove forward and around Brley’s car.
Brley noted the license plate number and reported it to the police. She also got a good look at the driver as he
drove by. In court, she identified
appellant as the driver of the Toyota.
Brley
further testified to the following.
After this incident, she saw that there were “scuff marks†on her rear
bumper. She did not know if these scuff
marks were there before the accident.
Hers is an “older†car, so “scuffs come, you know. I don’t look at my bumper every day to check
it out.†She was asked “You’re not sure
exactly where they came from, but you saw them there?†She answered, “Exactly.â€
Susie
Murillo testified to the following. On
September 8 at approximately 7:00 p.m. she was in her front yard along with her
husband and two children when a white car backed into a neighbor’s driveway
where it struck a dresser and some trash cans that were there. The car then drove back out of the driveway
and down the street. Murillo noted the
license plate number of the car and reported it to the police. She got a “pretty good look†at the driver,
who she identified in court as appellant.
California
Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Aaron Taylor testified to the following: On September 8, responding to a call, he
spoke with Susie Murillo, obtained from her the license plate number of the car
that had backed into objects in the driveway of one of Murillo’s neighbors, and
went searching for the car. At 8:07 p.m.
on September 8 he found the car with the license plate number reported by
Murillo, parked in a convenience store parking lot approximately one mile from
Murillo’s house. Appellant was sitting
in the driver’s seat.
Officer
Taylor further testified to the following.
He made contact with appellant.
The officer “noticed some signs of drug influence,†viz., his eyes were
red, his pupils were dilated, his speech was “rambling,†and “his actions were
fidgety.†At that point, Taylor had
appellant exit the car. Next, the
officer conducted a patdown search of appellant, and found a glass
methamphetamine smoking pipe in appellant’s rear pants pocket. The officer seized the pipe, arrested
appellant, placed him in the back of his patrol car, and transported him to a
nearby CHP office.
CHP Officer
Scott Merritt testified to the following.
He is a certified drug recognition expert. He performed an evaluation on appellant on
September 8 at the Bakersfield CHP office, at which time he observed
“signs of stimulant use,†viz., appellant was “extremely fidgety,†he was
unable to stand still, his legs were shaking uncontrollably and twitching, his
eyes were red and watery, and his speech was “rapid.†Officer Merritt opined that appellant was
under the influence of a drug and was “unsafe to drive.â€
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the
record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues
exist.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy,
J., and Cornell, J.
