Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC766776
Premo, J.
Defendant Luis Alberto Garcia entered a negotiated guilty plea to two counts of receiving a stolen vehicle. At sentencing, the trial court found that defendant “used” a motor vehicle for purposes of Vehicle Code section 13350 (requiring suspension of the driver’s license of any person who has been convicted of any felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used). On appeal, defendant contends that possession of a stolen vehicle does not constitute “use” of a vehicle within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 13350. The People concede the point. We agree that the concession is appropriate. We therefore modify the judgment and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Police found defendant stripping a stolen vehicle, and defendant admitted being inside another stolen, nearby vehicle. In pronouncing judgment, the trial court stated over defendant’s objection: “I recommend to the State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles the revocation of defendant’s driving privileges pursuant to Section 13350 of the California Vehicle Code.”
DISCUSSION
For purposes of Vehicle Code section 13350, “used” in the commission of a felony means that there was a nexus between the offense and the vehicle, not merely that the vehicle was incidental to the crime. (People v. Poindexter (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 803, 808.) Here, the record shows no more than that defendant possessed vehicles. Nothing shows that defendant used either vehicle as, for example, his transportation during the underlying felony or a repository for the fruits of the underlying felony.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to strike the finding that defendant used a vehicle in the commission of a felony. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:, Rushing, P.J.,Elia, J.