Opinion
A167613
03-04-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 21NF011927-A
GOLDMAN, J.
Jason Michael Augustine appeals a judgment sentencing him to two years and eight months in county jail after he admitted to, among other counts, possessing with the intent to defraud the personal identifying information of 10 or more other people in violation of Penal Codesection 530.5, subdivision (c)(3). His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record for arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel informed Augustine of his right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, which he has not done. We have conducted a review pursuant to Wende and find no arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
Background
Augustine was charged with twelve criminal counts based on conduct occurring on two separate days. Based on conduct that occurred on February 22, 2021, Augustine was charged with one felony count of unlawfully possessing the personal information of 10 or more individuals with the intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3)), five felony counts of identification theft with a prior (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), two felony counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), and one misdemeanor count of possessing burglar's tools (§ 466). Based on conduct that occurred on July 20, 2022, Augustine was charged with one felony count of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), one felony count of identification theft with a prior (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), and one felony count of false personation (§ 529, subd. (a)(3)). In addition, the prosecution alleged that Augustine had seven prior felony convictions. (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4).)
After entering his not guilty plea, Augustine filed a motion to suppress pursuant to section 1538.5, challenging the legality of his detention and subsequent searches of his person and property on both February 22, 2021, and July 20, 2022. At the hearing on the motion, a police officer for the City of South San Francisco testified that on February 22, 2021, while patrolling a local parking garage, he noticed Augustine wearing a virtual reality headset, swinging his arms around near a parked car. The officer was familiar with Augustine and knew from previous experience that the vehicle belonged to him. Record checks indicated that Augustine was on probation with search conditions in San Mateo County.
The officer positioned his car approximately 10 feet from Augustine's vehicle so as to restrict, but not block, his exit from the parking spot. The officer approached and almost immediately confirmed Augustine's identity and probation status. The officer then conducted a probationary search of his vehicle and person, which revealed evidence supporting the charged crimes.
A Daly City police officer testified that on July 20, 2022, he issued a traffic citation to Augustine for not having a front license plate on his vehicle and for having illegally tinted windows. At the time, Augustine identified himself by a false name and presented an Oregon driver's license to the officer. A month later, the officer received a report from a man in Oregon who had received the citation from the traffic stop, but who claimed never to have been to Daly City. The officer reviewed footage from the traffic stop as part of his investigation and identified Augustine as the man to whom he had issued the traffic citation.
The court denied the motion to suppress. With respect to the first incident, the court found that the officer's initial contact with Augustine was consensual and that the officer properly confirmed Augustine's probation status prior to conducting the search. As to the subsequent traffic stop, the court found that there was no violation of Augustine's Fourth Amendment rights given that the initial traffic stop followed the officer's observation of traffic infractions and the subsequent review of the footage occurred after the officer received the report from the man in Oregon.
Augustine pled guilty to one felony count of possessing with the intent to defraud the personal information of 10 or more individuals (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3)), one felony count of forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), one felony count of identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), and one felony count of false personation (§ 529, subd. (a)(3)).
Augustine was sentenced to county jail for a total term of two years and eight months. The Court awarded total credit for 288 days served and ordered Augustine to pay $370 per count in fees and fines.
In a related probation violation case, the court terminated Augustine's probation and sentenced him to a concurrent term on the original charges. Augustine's notice of appeal does not purport to appeal the court's order in the related action.
Discussion
Because Augustine did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our jurisdiction is limited. We may consider the propriety of his sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect its validity, and the correctness of the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have independently reviewed the entire record, including the transcript of the hearing on Augustine's motion to suppress, and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him.
We discern no error or abuse of discretion in the court's ruling denying Augustine's motion to suppress evidence. Augustine's sentence is consistent with the terms of the negotiated plea agreement. His presentence custody credits were properly calculated. The court properly imposed the following mandatory assessments on each count: a minimum restitution fine of $300 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), a $40 court operations assessment pursuant to section 1465.8, and a $30 court facilities assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1). We note, however, that the abstract of judgment does not reflect imposition of these assessments. Accordingly, the abstract must be amended on remand. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-188 [abstract of judgment must fully and accurately capture all components of a defendant's sentence].)
Disposition
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the assessments imposed at sentencing. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: STREETER, Acting P.J., SMILEY, J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.