Opinion
H047739
06-01-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAMON MARSEILLES MAXWELL, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. C1894442; C1902963
Grover, J.
Defendant Damon Marseilles Maxwell appeals a four-year sentence imposed after defendant pleaded no contest to one count of identity theft and one count of identity theft with a prior identity theft conviction. Upon defendant's timely appeal, we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appellate counsel filed a brief stating the case and facts but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, and defendant has not done so.
We have reviewed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440-441.) We include here a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case as well as the conviction and punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.) Finding no arguable issue, we will affirm the judgment.
I. Trial Court Proceedings
This appeal involves two criminal cases. According to an offense summary in the probation report for one case, defendant was arrested on an unrelated matter in the possession of another man's identification card. Defendant had used that man's identity to buy a used car without his permission. When officers later located the car, the female driver told officers defendant had purchased it for her.
Defendant was charged with two felony counts: identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)), and unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The complaint alleged defendant had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and had served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
As part of a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) and admitted the special allegations. The parties stipulated to a sentence of two years eight months in prison, and the prosecution agreed to move to dismiss the remaining count.
Before sentencing in that case, defendant was charged in a new case with four counts of felony identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) related to conduct before his arrest in the other case. (Details of the offenses are not in the record because defendant waived a full probation report for the second case.) The complaint alleged defendant had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and had served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
As part of a second negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to an added felony count of identity theft with a prior identity theft conviction (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(2)) and admitted the special allegations. The four original charged counts were reduced to misdemeanors, to which defendant also pleaded no contest.
The trial court denied defendant's motion to strike his prior strike conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497). Consistent with the negotiated dispositions in both cases, the trial court sentenced defendant to four years in prison, consisting of a principal term of two years eight months for identity theft in the earlier-charged case (the low term, doubled because of the prior strike conviction; Pen. Code, §§ 530.5, subd. (a), 667, subd. (e)(1)); and one year four months consecutive for identity theft with a prior in the later-charged case (one-third the middle term, doubled because of the prior strike conviction; Pen. Code, §§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2); 1170.1, subd. (a); 667, subd. (e)(1)). The court struck the punishment (Pen. Code, § 1385) for the prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and dismissed the second count from the earlier-charged case. The court did not impose any fines or fees, apparently finding that defendant would be unable to pay them. Defendant received 629 days of presentence custody credit in the earlier-charged case, based on 315 actual days and 314 days' conduct credit (Pen. Code, § 4019).
We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue.
II. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Greenwood, P. J., Danner, J.