Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside CountySuper.Ct.No. SWJOO5871. James T. Warren, Judge. Affirmed.
Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
On September 12, 2006, the District Attorney of Riverside County filed a petition subsequent pursuant to section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code which alleged that defendant had violated Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), count one, and unlawfully receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of section 496d of the Penal Code, as charged in count two.
A jurisdictional hearing was held between November 9 and 16, 2006. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sustained true findings as to both counts. The court also noted Counts 1 and 2 “are each three-year felonies” and they would be subject to Penal Code section 654.
On January 8, 2007, defendant was found to be a minor coming within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and he was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation. He was returned to his mother on standard terms and conditions on the further condition that defendant spend 14 to 28 days in juvenile hall.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On August 6, 2006, at about noon, Deputy Sheriff Kiebach was patrolling southbound on Perris Boulevard in Perris. As he observed a 1988 Toyota Camry he did a license check and the plate came back stolen. Deputy Kiebach attempted a felony stop on the vehicle as it turned eastbound on Jarvis. The Camry made an immediate right hand turn into the Vintage Woods apartments. However, the apartment complex was gated and the Camry was stopped.
With additional deputies having arrived on the scene, defendant and a friend in the Camry were ordered out of the vehicle, frisked, and placed in separate police vehicles. Defendant’s friend, Daniel Santos had been the driver and defendant was the passenger. Two shaved keys were found on the driver’s seat.
When Deputy Kiebach questioned defendant about what happened, defendant stated that Daniel Santos came to his house about noon driving the stolen vehicle. Defendant said he knew Santos did not own the car but did not know where Santos had gotten it. Defendant asked Santos to drive him to a friend’s house so defendant got in and they drove off.
Daniel Santos testified that he had known defendant for about three years. On August 6, 2006, he was visiting defendant at defendant’s house and had been doing so for about a week. Santos arrived at defendant’s house by taking a bus from San Bernardino where he lived and where he and defendant first became friends. Santos was 15 years old.
In the early morning hours of August 6, 2006, Santos and defendant had been at a party. They had been given a ride to the party by a friend’s older sister but had no way to get back home. As they started walking home they came across the Camry and defendant pulled out a shaved key and opened the driver’s door. Defendant then got into the car and started the engine with the shaved key. Defendant opened the passenger door for Santos and Santos got into the passenger’s side. Santos knew the car did not belong to him or defendant and that neither had permission to drive it. Defendant drove to his home some 20 to 30 minutes away, parked the car some distance from the house and walked to his house where both went in and went to sleep.
After waking up, they returned to the Camry, got in, with Santos driving. After driving for about 10 minutes, they were pulled over by Deputy Kiebach.
In March 2005, when Santos and defendant both lived in San Bernardino, they had gotten into a car, a 1988 Honda, without the consent or permission of the owner. Santos used a shaved key he had to get into the car. Santos stepped out and defendant got in but, as defendant was looking around inside the Honda, a police officer drove up.
On cross-examination, Santos denied he had told a defense investigator that defendant was not with him when he stole the Camry. Santos also told the investigator that what he had told the police regarding the Camry was true.
Norma Rodriguez, defendant’s 28-year-old sister and mother of four testified that defendant lives with her. She stated that she worked the night shift from 10:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at Wal-Mart. She got home from work on August 6, 2006, shortly after 7:00 a.m. When she arrived home, she saw defendant sleeping on the couch. She got up about 10:00 to 10:30 a.m. and at that time Santos was not there. Santos had slept over some time before August 6th, perhaps a couple days or week before. Around noon, Ms. Rodriguez saw Santos drive up into the driveway. Defendant went out and talked to Santos and then told his sister he was going to a friend’s house. Defendant then got into the car and he and Santos left with Santos driving.
Defendant testified that he got up on August 6, 2006, about 11:00 a.m. Santos came over to his house a little later and defendant asked him for a ride to his friend John’s house. Santos agreed, defendant got in the car, a Camry, and they left but a short time later they were pulled over. He did not ask Santos where the car came from and did not know it was stolen. He did not know Santos was only 15-years-old.
Defendant had not seen Santos the previous evening and did not go to a party with him. Defendant testified that his friend John lived at the apartments they pulled up to. John had come out to lead them to his apartment and was right behind one of the police cars when they were pulled over. Defendant knew what a shaved key was and how it worked. During the March 2005 incident, he did not actually go into the car. Santos lied about that.
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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] 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 the 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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, J., MILLER, J.