Filed 7/9/26 P. v. Curry 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
F089388
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. BF201290A,
v. BF173564A, BF192455A,
BF199398A and MF016291A)
JESSEP BOYD CURRY,
Defendant and Appellant. OPINION
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John W. Lua,
Judge.
Erin J. Radekin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Harrell, J. and Guerra, J.
Defendant has an alarmingly long history of dealing in stolen vehicles, resulting in
charges filed across multiple cases. He filed a notice of appeal challenging the judgments
in several cases in which he pleaded no contest. Counsel filed a Wende brief.1 We find
no arguable issues and affirm the judgments.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Case No. BF173564A
In a complaint filed in case No. BF173564A on August 29, 2018, the Kern County
District Attorney charged defendant with receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d,
subd. (a), count 1),3 driving or taking another’s vehicle without consent (Veh. Code,
§ 10851, subd. (a), count 2), and two counts of stealing personal property (§ 488,
counts 3–4.) The complaint also alleged, as to counts 1 and 2, three prior prison term
enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and that defendant had been previously convicted of
violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subd. (a) (§ 666.5, subd. (a)).
Defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby he would plead no contest to
count 1, admit the prior conviction of Vehicle Code section 10851 (§ 666.5, subd. (a))
and one prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant would be
sentenced to a total of five years, two of which would be served in custody and the
remainder on “supervision.” Two other cases would also be dismissed pursuant to the
agreement, and his five-year term would be concurrent to “all other matters.”
On October 1, 2018, defense counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for
the plea, and defendant entered pleas in accordance with the plea agreement. The
prosecution moved to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations, as well as case
1 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
2 Defendant’s cases were resolved by no contest pleas. Defense counsel stipulated
that there was a basis for the pleas, so no factual basis was recited at the change of plea
hearings. Consequently, the underlying facts of the offenses are not elucidated.
3 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2.
Nos. BF173132 and BF173240, on the condition the plea remains in full force and effect,
with a Harvey4 waiver. Defendant also agreed to be sentenced concurrently with several
other pending cases.
At a hearing on October 30, 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant to four years
in jail on count 1 (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(b)), plus one year for the section 667.5,
subdivision (b) enhancement. The court ordered that defendant would serve two years in
custody and the remainder of his term under mandatory supervision. The court also
modified defendant’s mandatory supervision in other cases to coincide with the
mandatory supervision imposed in the present case.
Case No. BF192455A
In a complaint filed December 2, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney charged
defendant with conspiracy to commit attempted grand theft (§§ 664, 487, subd. (a),
count 1) and attempted grand theft (§§ 664, 487, subd. (a), count 2). The complaint also
alleged a prior strike.
In May 2023, defendant entered a plea agreement regarding multiple pending
cases. Defendant would plead no contest to count 1 of case No. BF192455A, count 1 of
case No. BF193856A (and admit an on-bail enhancement in this case), count 1 of case
No. BF194346A plus two misdemeanors alleged in the case (i.e., § 148, subd. (a)(1) &
Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)) and admit a prior conviction for theft. Defendant’s total
term would be five years eight months, the first year of which would be served in custody
and the remainder on mandatory supervision.
On May 17, 2023, defendant entered pleas in accordance with the plea agreement
and admitted he violated his mandatory supervision. Defense counsel stipulated that
there was a factual basis for the pleas. The prosecution dismissed the remaining counts
and allegations on condition the plea remained in full force and effect.
4 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754
3.
On June 21, 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years in jail on
count 1 of case No. BF192455A, a consecutive eight-month term on count 1 of case
No. BF193856A plus a consecutive two years for the enhancement under
section 12022.1, and a consecutive one-year term for count 1 of case No. BF194346A,
for a total of five years eight months. The court provided that defendant would serve the
first year of his term in custody and the remainder on mandatory supervision.
Case Nos. BF199398A
In an information filed in case No. BF199398A on November 13, 2024, the Kern
County District Attorney charged defendant with receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d,
subd. (a), count 1), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a), count 2), vandalism over
$400 (§ 594, subd. (b)(1), count 3), driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 4).
The information also alleged aggravating circumstances under California Rules of
Court, rule 4.421 (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5)5 as to all counts, two prior auto theft
convictions (§ 666.5, subd. (a)) as to count 1, and a prior strike (§§ 667, subds.(e)–(j)
& 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e)).
Defendant entered into an agreement whereby he would plead no contest to
count 1 and stipulate to receiving the upper term sentence for that count. Defendant
would also admit the aggravating circumstance under rule 4.421(b)(3) and admit one of
the theft priors under section 666.5, subdivision (a). Defendant would also plead no
contest to a charge of violating section 496d, subdivision (a) in case No. BF201290A.
Defendant’s total term between the two cases would be four years eight months, with the
first two years to be served in custody and the remainder served on mandatory
supervision. Counsel stipulated there was a factual basis for the pleas. Defendant
entered pleas and admissions in accordance with the agreement.
5 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
4.
Defendant also admitted violations of his mandatory supervision in case
Nos. BF192455A and BF173564A and was ordered to serve concurrent time. The
prosecution moved to dismiss all remaining charges and allegations in case
Nos. 199398A and 201290A on the condition defendant’s pleas and admissions remained
in full force and effect.
Case No. MF016291A
On November 7, 2024, in case No. MF016291A, the Kern County District
Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d,
subd. (a), count 1), driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851,
subd. (a), count 2), driving while privilege suspended or revoked (Veh. Code, § 14601.1,
subd. (a), count 3). The complaint also alleged aggravating factors under
rule 4.421(b)(2), (b)(3), and (c) as to counts 1 and 2.
On January 15, 2025, defendant entered a no contest plea as to count 1, pursuant to
a plea agreement. The agreement provided that defendant would serve 16 months in jail,
concurrent with all of the other cases for which he was serving sentences. Counsel
stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. The remaining counts and allegations were
dismissed, conditioned on the plea remaining in full force and effect.
Sentencing Hearing on January 22, 2025
On January 22, 2025, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four
years in jail on count 1 of case No. BF199398A, plus a term of eight months in jail on
count 1 of case No. BF201290A. The court stated the eight-month term would run
concurrently, but defendant concedes on appeal that the parties had intended for the
eight-month term to run consecutively to his four-year term. The minute order states the
eight-month term was to run consecutively. Two years of the total term was to be served
in custody and the remainder on mandatory supervision.
5.
The trial court also modified defendant’s mandatory supervision in case
Nos. BF192455A, BF193156A, and BF194346A to provide for two years in custody,
concurrent with the sentences imposed in case Nos. BF199398A and BF201290A.
Defendant had already completed his mandatory supervision in case
No. BF173564A.
Sentencing Hearing on February 14, 2025
On February 14, 2025, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of
16 months in jail on count 1 of case No. MF016291A, which would be served concurrent
to the sentences imposed in case Nos. BF143508A; BF150491A; MM105745A;
BF201290A; BF199398A; BF173564A and BF192455A.
DISCUSSION
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of an
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
However, we will briefly note that the court’s standard letter issued to defendants
in Wende cases was returned undeliverable in this case. Appellant’s counsel’s
declaration included with the Wende brief indicated the address we used was the only one
Kern County Probation has on file for defendant.6 Our clerk’s office also contacted the
superior court to possibly obtain a current address for defendant, but the superior court
did not have another one, nor did appellate counsel.
We conclude our inability to contact defendant despite multiple attempts to do so
poses no barrier to our resolution of this matter. Defendant personally filed the notice of
appeal in this case. In that document, he provided his address as “[***95] Ind farm
Road” in Bakersfield, which is an address of the Kern County Sheriff’s Office Lerdo
Detention Complex. In 2025, this court sent letters regarding appointed counsel to
6 This is possibly cause for concern, given that it appears defendant should be on
mandatory supervision currently.
6.
defendant, but they were marked by the U.S. Postal Service as “return to sender, not in
custody, unable to forward.” When we sent the Wende letter described above, we used a
different address because defense counsel indicated it was the only address Kern County
Probation had on file for defendant.
It is the responsibility of litigants and counsel to provide notice of any change in
address. (Rule 8.32.) Failure to do so will not inure to the violating party’s benefit.
Having tried to contact defendant at all addresses provided by him and/or counsel, we
have no choice but to resolve this matter.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
7.
