Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County Nos. VCF176474 & VCF159904, Ronn M. Couillard, Judge.
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
In a felony complaint filed January 4, 2007, it was alleged that appellant Danny Edward Waits committed violations of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (illegal taking or driving of a motor vehicle; count 1) and Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a) (receiving a stolen motor vehicle; count 2). It was further alleged that appellant had suffered a prior conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (Pen. Code, § 666.5), had served four separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and had suffered 12 prior felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4).
On May 10, 2007, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to the count 2 offense and admitted the prior prison term enhancement allegations. Appellant requested immediate sentencing, and the court imposed a prison term of six years, consisting of the three-year midterm on the substantive offense and one year on each of three prior prison term enhancements, and ordered that term to be served concurrently with a term appellant was already serving at the time on separate case in which he had suffered a conviction and violated his parole. The court dismissed the remaining prior prison term enhancement.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
A police report attached to a police officer’s declaration in support of an application for an arrest warrant indicates the following regarding the facts of the instant offense. At approximately 3:47 p.m. on December 16, 2006, a City of Porterville police officer observed appellant driving a car which the officer knew to be stolen, based on information he had received at a briefing a few days previously. The officer followed appellant, and eventually appellant stopped the car and got out. The officer apprehended appellant shortly thereafter.
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.