P.
v. Salas
Filed
1/23/14 P. v. Salas CA2/7
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff
and Respondent,
v.
JAIME SALAS,
Defendant
and Appellant.
B248461
(
Super. Ct. No. BA392205)
APPEAL from a judgment of the
Lench, Judge. Affirmed.
Jaime Salas, in pro. per.; and Christopher Love, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
>
A neighbor called police after seeing Jaime Salas fire a
semiautomatic handgun into the air.
Salas refused to comply with the commands of responding officers and
physically resisted their efforts to take him into custody.
An information
charged Salas with discharging a firearm with gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 246.3, subd. (a)),
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and resisting,
obstructing or delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The information specially alleged Salas had
suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions for robbery (a
conviction) within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds.
(b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and one serious felony under section
667, subdivision (a)(1). Salas pleaded
not guilty and denied the special allegations.
Prior to trial Salas filed
following a search of his apartment (§ 1538.5); bifurcate the trial of his
prior conviction allegations; sanitize the prior felony conviction (robbery),
which formed the basis for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a
felon; and preclude the People from introducing any photographs of, or
otherwise referring to, the firearms found in his apartment. The trial court heard and granted these
motions. Salas also moved to dismiss his
prior strike convictions (
Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th
497 (Romero); § 1385), which the
court denied without prejudice, and to bifurcate trial on the charge of unlawful
possession of a firearm by a felon and exclude evidence of police emergency calls,
which the court heard and denied.
A jury convicted Salas on all counts. Salas waived
his right to a jury on the prior conviction allegations. Following a bench trial the court found true the
prior serious felony conviction allegations.
Salas renewed his
granted it as to the juvenile adjudication after Salas agreed to waive his
right to challenge his sentence on appeal. The court then sentenced Salas to an aggregate
state prison term of 12 years 4 months and a consecutive term of one year
in county jail: Six years (the upper
term of three years doubled under the three strikes law) for discharging a
firearm with gross negligence, plus five years for the prior serious felony
enhancement; a consecutive term of 16 months (one-third the middle term of two
years doubled under the three strikes law) for unlawful possession of a firearm
by a felon; and a consecutive term of one year in county jail for resisting,
obstructing or delaying a peace officer. The court awarded Salas presentence custody
credit of 924 days (462 actual days and 462 days of conduct credit). The court ordered Salas to
pay a $40 court security fee and a $30 criminal conviction assessment on each
count and a $280 restitution fine. The
court imposed and suspended a parole revocation fine pursuant to section
1202.45.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Salas on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed
an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On October 16, 2013 we advised Salas he had 30 days within which to
personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. On October 28, 2013 we received a handwritten
supplemental brief in which Salas challenged both his conviction, on the ground
of ineffective assistance of counsel, and his sentence, asserting it violated
section 654 and was improperly based on the use of his juvenile adjudication as
a prior strike and otherwise constituted an abuse of discretion under
Salas’s claims are without merit. The record fails to demonstrate defense
counsel provided ineffective assistance. (Strickland
v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 686 [104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d
674].) As for Salas’s claims of sentencing
error, he waived his right to challenge his sentence on appeal. In any event, the record fails to support Salas’s
contention he was sentenced in violation of section 654 (see
discretion under Romero (see
1145, 1155). Finally, contrary to
Salas’s assertion, the court dismissed his juvenile adjudication for robbery as
a prior strike and did not consider it in imposing sentence.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied
Salas’s counsel has complied fully with his responsibilities and no arguable
issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746,
145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
PERLUSS,
P. J.
We
concur:
ZELON,
J.
SEGAL, J.
references are to the Penal Code.
Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article
VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
