Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County Super. Ct. Nos. 30105 & 28031. John Kirihara, Judge.
Gordon B. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
OPINION
An information filed May 27, 2003, alleged that appellant Jose Covarruvias committed attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664; count 1), discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 12034, subd. (c)); count 2), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count 3) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 4). It was further alleged as follows: in committing the count 1 offense, appellant discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and in committing each of the charged offenses, appellant carried a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of street gang crimes described in section 186.22, subdivisions (a) or (b) (§ 12021.5, subd. (a)), and acted for the benefit of, at the direction of and in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist in criminal conduct by gang members. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
On January 20, 2004, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled no contest to the count 4 offense (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted the criminal street gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
On March 2, 2004, the court imposed a prison term, consistent with the plea agreement, of eight years, consisting of the three-year midterm on the substantive offense and five years on the enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B)); suspended execution of sentence; and placed appellant on five years’ probation.
On August 11, 2006, in Merced County Superior Court case No. 30105, (case No. 30105), a jury convicted appellant of two felonies.
Case No. 30105 is currently on appeal in this court in People v. Covarruvias, case No. F051348. Upon our own motion, we take judicial notice of pages 67 and 68 of the clerk’s transcript on appeal in case No. F051348.
On September 26, 2006, the court found appellant to be in violation of probation in the instant case based on appellant’s convictions in case No. 30105, ordered probation revoked and terminated, lifted the suspension of the previously imposed eight-year prison sentence and ordered that term to run consecutively to the term of 30 years to life imposed in case No. 30105. The instant appeal followed.
We have previously taken judicial notice of pages 117 through 127 of the clerk’s transcript on appeal in case No. F051348.
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.
FACTS
The report of the probation officer indicates the following: On February 16, 2003, Jose Arellano and two other persons “were in front of a residence in Livingston” when “[a] small white car drove slowly down the street.” Arellano, “suspect[ing] trouble,” “slouched down in the front seat of his vehicle.” The driver of the car shouted, “South Side Locs” and “fired one shot at Arellano.” Arellano “waited a few seconds and then got out the vehicle,” at which point “[t]he driver … fired a second shot at Arellano and fled.” Arellano then called the police. He “told the police that he had an ongoing problem with the [appellant].” Police went to appellant’s residence and found parked in front a vehicle that “matched the description of the vehicle used in the shooting.”
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.