From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vallejo

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Nov 26, 2007
No. H031487 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2007)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE AGUILAR VALLEJO, Defendant and Appellant. H031487 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District November 26, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

San Benito County Super.Ct.No. CR-06-02030

Duffy, J.

Defendant, Jorge Aguilar Vallejo, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to felony possession of methamphetamine and various misdemeanors and admitted suffering a prior burglary conviction for which he served a term in prison. The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We take the facts from the police report.

On December 23, 2006, Hollister Police Officer Nick Carlquist noticed defendant, wanted on a “body-only” warrant, walking down Airline Highway in San Benito County. As Officer Carlquist approached in his patrol car, defendant yelled “Fuck the cops,” fled down the highway, hurdled a fence, then ran across a field and into a barn where he jumped over a tractor and waited for the officer with clenched fists. Officer Carlquist pursued, first in his car and then on foot; upon reaching the barn the officer jumped over the tractor, tearing his uniform in the process, drew his sidearm and ordered defendant to lie down. After directing further obscenities at the officer as well as a threat to “kill you and your family,” defendant eventually complied and was placed in handcuffs.

A search of defendant revealed a glass smoking pipe in the pocket of his shorts and a torn plastic baggie containing a white crystalline substance which later tested presumptively positive for amphetamine and had a gross weight of .99 grams.

Defendant was charged by amended complaint with felony possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf., § 11377, subd. (a)), resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code, § 69), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550), and possession of an injection/ingestion device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364). It was also alleged that he had been previously convicted of burglary for which he served a term in prison (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The parties later stipulated that the amended complaint could be “deemed” the information.

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to the felony charge of possession of methamphetamine and admitted serving a prior prison term for burglary. The prosecutor amended the information to add a misdemeanor count, resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)); defendant pleaded no contest to this additional charge as well as to the misdemeanor charges of being under the influence of a controlled substance and possession of an injection/ingestion device. The charge of resisting an executive officer was dismissed. The trial court indicated that it would sentence defendant to a term of three years in state prison with concurrent sentences for all misdemeanors.

Defendant also entered pleas of no contest to other misdemeanors and admitted probation violations in four unrelated cases which are not the subject of this appeal.

As promised, the court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years for the felony possession charge and a consecutive one-year term for the enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) for a total term of three years in state prison. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the misdemeanor offenses. Defendant was awarded a total of 15 days custody credit and was ordered to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590 and to pay a restitution fine in the sum of $400. A parole revocation fine in like amount was imposed and suspended under Penal Code section 1202.45.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging only the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but he has not availed himself of this opportunity.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Mihara, Acting P.J., McAdams, J.


Summaries of

People v. Vallejo

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Nov 26, 2007
No. H031487 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2007)
Case details for

People v. Vallejo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE AGUILAR VALLEJO, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Nov 26, 2007

Citations

No. H031487 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2007)