Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 154589
Marchiano, P.J.
A jury convicted defendant Anthony C. Bolton of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). Defendant admitted a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to four years in prison—the midterm of two years for the offense, doubled because of the prior strike. (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (e)(1).) His counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I.
At approximately 7:15 p.m. on January 7, 2007, Alameda Police Officer Vreeland was assisting two other officers, Crossley and Bartosz, with a routine stop of two bicyclists at the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Chapin Street. The officers saw a white four-door Cadillac Seville, with very dark-tinted side windows, traveling about 45 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone. Officer Vreeland shined his flashlight at the Cadillac and motioned for it to stop. The Cadillac came to a rolling stop in front of him.
Vreeland, who was in full uniform, walked up to the front passenger window, shined his flashlight inside, and asked the driver why he was going so fast. Vreeland positively identified defendant in court as the driver. Officer Crossley stood next to Vreeland and shined his flashlight into the car. Crossley also positively identified defendant in court as the driver.
Defendant looked at Vreeland, but did not answer his question. At the time, Vreeland recognized defendant, but “could not put a name to the face.”
The Cadillac started to roll forward. Vreeland told defendant to stop the car. Defendant stopped “for a brief second, and then took off.” Vreeland and Crossley went to their separate patrol cars and gave chase. Vreeland, who was ahead of Crossley, activated his overhead lights and siren.
During the chase defendant ran a stop sign, crossed the center divide to pass two cars, and ran a red light. Vreeland was at “full acceleration,” but could not catch up to the Cadillac, which traveled at speeds ranging from 40 to 70 miles per hour.
Vreeland lost sight of the Cadillac and searched for it by patrolling side streets. He saw the Cadillac parked at the corner of Arbor Street and Pacific Avenue. The Cadillac was empty, but the driver’s seat and the engine were still warm. The engine was still ticking. There were two bags of groceries in the back seat, which contained refrigerated food items that were still cold.
Vreeland called in the Cadillac’s license plate number to dispatch and was told that the Cadillac was registered to defendant, who lived in the 1500 block of Pacific Avenue. When the dispatcher told him defendant’s name he connected defendant’s name with the face, and told the dispatcher “that that was the subject that I thought was in the vehicle.”
Vreeland and Crossley returned to the police station. Vreeland entered defendant’s name on the Alameda Police Department’s online database. A photograph of defendant appeared on the screen. Vreeland turned to Crossley and said, “That’s him. 100 percent.”
Defendant objected to the online identification process as unduly suggestive because there was only one photo on the screen, but this was a police data search, not a photo lineup for a witness. After the Evidence Code section 402 hearing, the trial judge properly overruled the objection.
Vreeland put together a photographic lineup of six pictures, including defendant’s as No. 2, and gave it to Bartosz. Bartosz showed the lineup to James Soogian, one of the two bicyclists the officers stopped, who claimed he could identify the driver of the white Cadillac. Soogian identified defendant’s picture as someone who looked like the driver.
Soogian testified at trial that the Cadillac driver was a black male with gold teeth, but that defendant “kind of doesn’t really look like him.” He testified that defendant looked older than the driver, and that Soogian did not think defendant was the driver of the Cadillac. He primarily picked defendant’s picture from the lineup because No. 2 had gold teeth.
Picture No. 2 was the only one of the six showing a man with gold teeth, but picture No. 1 showed a man with a gold tooth. In denying a new trial motion, the trial judge found that the photo lineup was not unduly suggestive.
The Cadillac was towed on the night of the chase. Alameda Police Sergeant Petty testified that defendant called him at approximately 11:00 p.m. that night, was upset that his car had been towed, and denied driving the Cadillac that day. He claimed he did not know exactly where it had been parked because a female friend had been driving it. Defendant said he could not drive because his license had been suspended. But defendant claimed that only his fingerprints would be found in the Cadillac because he was the only one who drove it.
Defendant did not testify. His sole witness was Traci Granado, his downstairs neighbor. She could always hear defendant coming and going on the stairs, and could hear his door open and close. She testified he was in his apartment before 7:00 p.m. on the day of the chase and she talked to him. She left for about 15 minutes to retrieve her son from the park, saw defendant’s car being towed while she was on her way home, and spoke about that to defendant, who was still in his apartment. She admitted she had suffered three convictions for felonies involving moral turpitude, one in 1993 and two in 2002. She was still on probation for the 2002 convictions.
II.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. Defendant was represented by counsel and had a fair trial. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. Two police officers positively identified him in court as the driver of the Cadillac. The trial court found that identification of defendant, including the photo lineup, was not unduly suggestive. Defendant admitted to Sergeant Petty that he was the only one who drove the Cadillac. The evidence unmistakably established that defendant led the police on a dangerous high-speed chase, in clear violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a).
There was no error in the proceedings or the sentence imposed.
III.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We concur: Stein, J., Swager, J.