Opinion
E047295.
7-14-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS RENATO BUSTOS, Defendant and Appellant.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
Defendant and appellant Luis Renato Bustos appeals from a jury verdict for vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At trial, a railroad worker testified that he was staying at a motel during a lay over on February 25, 2008, when his vehicle was stolen from the motel parking lot. He left the vehicle in the parking lot outside his room with the engine running. The doors were closed but unlocked. He heard the door of the vehicle open and then saw the vehicle being driven away by a Hispanic male with short hair and a moustache. He reported the vehicle stolen. The next day, the vehicle was recovered but it was not in the same condition. The tire rims on the drivers side were broken, the tires were flat, the bumper was broken, and there were dents and scratches on the front fender and bumper.
A police officer testified that an anonymous caller reported seeing the vehicle being driven recklessly by a Hispanic male wearing a blue striped shirt on February 25, 2008. The officer located and pursued the vehicle with the emergency lights and siren activated on his marked police car, but the driver did not yield. As he was pursuing the vehicle, the driver pulled into a driveway, turned the vehicle around, and continued in the opposite direction. When the vehicle passed by him, the officer made eye contact with defendant and was able to identify him at trial. The officer turned around and continued to follow the vehicle at almost 40 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour residential zone until the vehicle hit a brick wall and stopped. Defendant abandoned the vehicle and ran. The officer pursued defendant on foot yelling, "Police. Stop."
Defendant jumped over a fence into the backyard of a residence. The officer also jumped over the fence and found defendant ducking down on the side of the house. Although the officer yelled, "Police. Dont move," defendant ran and tried to climb over a wall. The officer was able to grab defendant while he was climbing the wall. Both fell to the ground, and defendant began pushing with his hands, feet, and knees to try to get away from the officer. During the struggle, defendant grabbed the officers belt with his left hand. Frightened, the officer punched defendant twice in the face to keep him from getting any of the weapons on his belt. The officer was then able to handcuff defendant.
During a postarrest search, the officer found a "shaved key" in defendants pocket. The officer testified a "shaved key" is used to enter and steal a vehicle. When he searched the vehicle, the officer found the correct keys to the vehicle in the ignition.
Defendant was charged with unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) (count 1); resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69) (count 2); and evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)) (count 3). Two prior prison terms were alleged within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the time of trial, the court dismissed count 3. The jury convicted defendant of the remaining two counts. The jury also found the prior conviction allegations to be true.
Defendant requested immediate sentencing after the jury reached its verdict. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of five years eight months in state prison. To reach the total term, the trial court imposed the aggravated term of three years for the vehicle theft offense. The court then added a consecutive term of 8 months (i.e., one-third of the middle term) for the offense of resisting an executive officer. Two 1-year terms were also added as a result of the two prior convictions. To justify imposing the aggravated term on count 1, the trial court noted defendant had convictions other than those alleged in the charging document and relied on defendants significant record of criminal conduct as an adult, as well as his poor performance on parole and/or probation.
DISCUSSION
On December 12, 2008, defendant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. On May 18, 2009, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
GAUT, J.
MILLER, J.