From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Baltierra

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Sep 19, 2011
E052326 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2011)

Opinion

E052326

09-19-2011

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID BALTIERRA, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

Cindy Brines, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FWV1001693)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Jon D. Ferguson, Judge. Affirmed.

Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

On July 23, 2010, an information charged defendant and appellant David Baltierra, Jr. (defendant), with receiving stolen property under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (count 1); and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle under Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 2). The information also alleged that defendant suffered a strike prior under Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and three prior conviction and prison commitments under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

Four days later, on July 27, defendant pled not guilty and denied the special allegations. On September 13, 2010, prior to trial, the trial court granted defendant's motion to bifurcate the priors.

After a jury trial, on September 21, 2010, the jury convicted defendant of unlawful taking of a vehicle, but acquitted defendant of receiving stolen property. After waiving his rights, defendant admitted his prior convictions.

The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, which was doubled to six years under section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), plus three years for the priors under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for a total term of nine years. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $1,600 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a $1,600 parole restitution fine under section 1202.45, stayed pending successful completion of parole. Defendant was given credit of 105 days for time served, and 52 days for good time and work time credit, for a total of 157 days of credit.

On November 19, 2010, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On July 6, 2010, Lesvia Cordero owned a gray/silver four-door 1996 Honda Accord, license plate number. 4SRY720. That afternoon, Cordero's daughter, Jacqueline Castro, borrowed Cordero's car to go to work. After work, Castro went to Freddy's Taco's and spent 20 minutes there. When Castro came out, the car was gone and she could not find her keys. Castro either left her keys in the car or dropped them on the ground; she reported the car stolen.

The next day, Paige Gonzales, defendant's ex-girlfriend, was at home with her son and mother. About 9:30 a.m., defendant showed up at the house and waited outside until Gonzales's mother left. He then took a shower at the house and left. Gonzales testified that she did not see defendant again that day. The next morning, Gonzales called the police because she was angry that defendant was running around with other women. Gonzales was told by dispatch to meet the police in a store parking lot across the street from a mobilehome park, where she reported defendant may be. Gonzales, who was not a cooperative witness during trial, testified that she remembered talking to Officer Kamper. According to Gonzales, however, she could not remember what she told the officer because she was under the influence of methamphetamine on a daily basis.

During the trial, Officers Melendez and Kamper testified that they responded to a call regarding a stolen vehicle parked in a mobilehome park. After they located the vehicle, they were told to leave the area so an unmarked police unit could set up surveillance to try to apprehend the suspect. The officers, therefore, went to the store parking lot across the street to wait for Gonzales. Officer Kamper interviewed Gonzales; he did not see any signs of Gonzales being under the influence. Officer Kamper testified that Gonzales told him that defendant had been driving a stolen car the day before, and that she believed that he was with a friend inside the trailer park. Gonzales gave Officer Kamper the license plate number 4SRY720 for the silver or "beigeish" Honda Accord; she saw defendant in the car while he was at her house the previous day. Officer Kamper also testified that Gonzales stated that defendant made her follow him in her car while he was driving the Honda. At some point, she left and went home.

While Gonzales was at the parking lot with the officers, defendant kept calling her. Officer Kamper had Gonzales answer the phone; she told defendant to meet her at the parking lot. When defendant walked over to the parking lot, he was taken into custody. The car was impounded. The keys, registration, insurance paperwork, and stereo were never recovered.

Steve Fishburn, the lead crime scene investigator, lifted a partial latent fingerprint on the rear trunk of the Honda and concluded that it belonged to defendant.

ANALYSIS

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKinster

J.
We concur: Hollenhorst

Acting P.J.
Codrington

J.


Summaries of

People v. Baltierra

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Sep 19, 2011
E052326 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Baltierra

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID BALTIERRA, JR., Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Sep 19, 2011

Citations

E052326 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2011)