Opinion
B157198.
7-8-2003
DIVISION EIGHT THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE LUNDQUIST, Defendant and Appellant.
Carol K. Lysaght, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On August 7, 2001, George Lundquists parole officer observed that Lundquist was driving a white Toyota Corolla bearing license plate number 3JCB376. Lundquist told the parole officer he had just bought the car. Sometime between August 21 and 22, 2001, Cheryl Alexanders blue Toyota Corolla, bearing license plate number 2HFS789, was stolen. On August 21, 2001, Culver City police officers made a traffic stop of Lundquist, who was driving a white Corolla bearing Alexanders license plates. Unaware that anything was amiss, the officers did not arrest Lundquist. On August 31, 2001, Lundquist drove to meet his parole officer. This time, he drove a blue Corolla, which bore the same license plates the officer saw on the white Corolla on August 7. That license plate belonged to a car that was registered to an auto dealer. Police officers who came to the scene discovered that the ignition switch was not secured to the dashboard. The key which Lundquist used to lock the car door was worn down and did not work the ignition switch. A screwdriver, which could be used to start the car, was found beneath the drivers seat.
Lundquist was arrested. A jury later convicted him of one count each of unlawful driving or taking of anothers vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) The court found true the allegation that Lundquist had a prior conviction under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). A combined state prison sentence of eight years was imposed. Lundquist then filed a notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent Lundquist on this appeal. On October 17, 2002, after examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. The brief included a declaration stating that counsel had informed Lundquist about counsels evaluation of the case and had advised Lundquist of his right to file a supplemental brief. On October 31, 2002, Lundquist filed a letter in an attempt to pinpoint the existence of arguable issues.
We have examined the entire record in light of the issues that Lundquists letter attempted to raise. We are satisfied that Lundquists attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 145 L. Ed. 2d 756, 120 S. Ct. 746; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 158 Cal. Rptr. 839, 600 P.2d 1071.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: COOPER, P.J., and BOLAND, J. --------------- Notes: We notified Lundquist of that right after the fact, on November 7, 2002.