Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA053938, Martin L. Herscovitz, Judge.
William D. Farber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Kenneth Jay McCoy appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest plea to, count 1, evading an officer with willful disregard, a felony, (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), count 3, the unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle, a misdemeanor, (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and his admission that he suffered a prior conviction and served a prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, he was sentenced to prison for four years and six months, consisting of, for count 1, the upper term of three years plus one year consecutive for the prior conviction enhancement, plus six months in county jail for count 3. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.
Appellant had also been charged in count 2 with resisting an executive officer in violation of Penal Code section 69 and in count 4 of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a). It was further alleged that appellant had served six prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) and had previously been convicted of six prior felonies within the meaning of Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). Count 3 originally was charged as a felony.
On October 31, 2006, Los Angeles police officer Ammon Williams was working in an undercover capacity when he observed appellant driving a red Acura on Saticoy Street in Los Angeles. Appellant was acting and driving erratically, swerving in and out of lanes. Officer Williams ran the license plate of the vehicle and learned it had been reported stolen. He then requested backup.
Los Angeles Police Officer Lo Wong and his partner Officer Kirkman responded to the call for backup. They were in full uniform, in a marked police vehicle and pursued appellant with their overhead lights and sirens on. They observed appellant attempt to make a turn at a high rate of speed, lose control of the vehicle, drive onto the curb and hit a stop sign. Appellant then drove on the sidewalk for awhile and then off the sidewalk onto a residential street. Appellant continued to drive erratically and at a high rate of speed through heavy traffic, changing lanes every few seconds and nearly colliding with the vehicle in front of him. Appellant then drove to the far right lane, driving halfway on the sidewalk and halfway on the street, his vehicle “sort of fishtailing through the rear” and speeding. As he approached a freeway entrance, appellant braked suddenly, then exited the vehicle and began running. The officers chased appellant on foot and apprehended him.
On October 18, 2006, Rafael Nunez, the owner of the vehicle, had given appellant permission to repair the car but not to drive it. When Mr. Nunez discovered the car was missing from his home, he contacted appellant, who promised to return the car that afternoon. Mr. Nunez reported the vehicle stolen on October 24.
Appellant’s Pitchess motion for pretrial discovery was heard and granted with respect to allegations against Officers Wong and Kirkman of excessive force, false police reports or false testimony. Following an in camera hearing, the trial court determined no disclosure was required.
Pitchess v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On January 16, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.
On February 6, 2008, we received a letter from appellant regarding his change of address and that he had not received any court transcripts from anyone in this case.
On February 7, 2008, we notified appellant he had until February 15, 2008 to file a supplemental brief and that if more time was needed he was directed to file a request for extension of time as soon as possible.
On March 26, 2008, appellant’s request for extension of time to file a supplemental brief was granted to April 25, 2008.
No supplemental brief has been filed to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
Appellant’s counsel filed an ex parte motion to correct the abstract of judgment to delete his count 3 misdemeanor conviction. He alleged the basis of the motion was that only felony convictions may properly be enumerated on page 1, section 1 of a felony abstract of judgment. The superior court denied the motion on the grounds that appellant had “provided no points and authorities for the principle that misdemeanor offenses cannot be included on an abstract of judgment. Further, such reference is required to explain to the Department of Corrections . . . why the defendant has not received his full time credits toward the felony conviction.”
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P. J., MANELLA, J.
We observe that page 2 of the abstract of judgment reflects that appellant was ordered to serve six months in Los Angeles County jail by reason of the conviction in count 3. This adequately reflects the fact that appellant’s conviction in count 3 of unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) was a misdemeanor.