Opinion
D070003
07-12-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ISRAEL PETRONE, Defendant and Appellant.
Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD264023) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth K. So, Judge. Affirmed. Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Michael Israel Petrone of reckless driving while evading a police officer. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) In bifurcated proceedings, Petrone admitted two probation denial priors under Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), two prison priors under section 667.5, subdivision (b) and one strike prior under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The trial court denied probation and sentenced Petrone to seven years in prison, which it calculated as follows: the upper term of three years for the current offense, doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)(1) for Petrone's strike prior, plus one year for one of his prison priors. The court struck the punishment for Petrone's other prison prior under section 1385.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Petrone appeals. His appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. She asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Petrone the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.)
Just prior to midnight on September 19, 2015, Petrone stopped at a gas station in the La Jolla area of San Diego. Brian Weaver, an officer with the University of California at San Diego Police Department, noticed that the license plate on Petrone's car had an expired registration sticker. Weaver checked motor vehicle records, which confirmed the car registration was indeed expired. It also revealed that Petrone, the car's registered owner, had a suspended driver's license.
Petrone exited the gas station, got into his car, and began to drive away. Weaver activated his lights and began to follow Petrone. Petrone did not stop, so Weaver activated his siren as well. Petrone led Weaver on a high-speed chase along surface streets and Interstate 5. He ran multiple red stop lights, drove at excessive speeds, and at one point drove the wrong way down a divided boulevard. On the freeway Petrone reached speeds of 100 miles per hour, then exited quickly crossing multiple lanes of traffic and causing other drivers to brake to avoid a collision. Weaver was eventually ordered to break off the pursuit because it was too dangerous. After further investigation, Weaver realized he had stopped and cited Petrone earlier in the year.
Petrone did not present any affirmative evidence. His defense focused on questioning the reliability of Weaver's identification and the lack of any actual damage to persons or property.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, Petrone's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Instead, she identified five possible issues under Anders: (1) "Did the trial court err in ruling appellant's prior convictions were admissible for impeachment purposes? (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (f); Evid. Code, § 788; People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378; People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301; People v. Rodriguez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 174, 178 [auto theft is a crime of moral turpitude]; People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 453.)" (2) "Was there sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction and the true findings on the prior convictions? (§§ 215, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b), 667.5 subd. (c)(17), 1192.7, subd. (c)(27); Veh. Code, § 2800.2.)" (3) "Did the trial court err in denying appellant's Romero motion [requesting that the court strike his strike prior]? (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 504.)" (4) "Did the trial court abuse its discretion in selecting the upper term of three years in state prison? (2 RT 184-185; see People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421.)" (5) "Did the trial court err in denying appellant's Marsden motion? (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-126; People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696.)"
In his Marsden motion, Petrone argued that his counsel had not adequately communicated with him or investigated his defenses. The court denied the motion. --------
We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and considered the possible issues identified by Petrone's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Petrone in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
DATO, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
McCONNELL, P. J. /s/_________
HALLER, J.