Opinion
C091729
02-19-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTONEIL J. ESCOLAR, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 19FE012945)
On July 20, 2019, a Sacramento police officer encountered defendant Christoneil J. Escolar sitting in a silver Ford Mustang that had been reported stolen. Inside the vehicle, the officer found a backpack containing credit cards and a driver's license belonging to the car's owner.
The owner reported the car stolen a few days earlier, when he walked out of a store and was unable to find his car in the parking lot where he left it, with the car keys inside.
In December 2019 defendant was charged with unlawfully driving and taking a vehicle. It was also alleged that in 2016, defendant was convicted of witness intimidation, a felony conviction that triggered the three strikes sentencing scheme.
At trial, defendant testified that he was stranded without a means of transportation, and someone who he believed was the owner of the Mustang agreed to let him borrow the car in exchange for a few grams of methamphetamine.
The prosecutor argued to the jury that defendant's version of how he got the car was a lie, and the jury found defendant guilty.
Defendant waived a jury trial on his prior conviction, and the trial court found the allegation true.
In March 2020, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years in state prison (the middle term, doubled for the prior strike).
The trial court calculated 461 days of credit, and -- after defense counsel asked the trial court to strike "any non-mandatory fines and fees" due to defendant's indigency -- ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine, a suspended parole revocation restitution fine of $300, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 court facility fee.
Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Robie, J. We concur: /s/_________
Hull, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Murray, J.