From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mestre

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Jun 24, 2013
2d Crim. No. B242243 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2013)

Opinion

2d Crim. No. B242243

06-24-2013

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT I. MESTRE, Defendant and Appellant.

Lori E. Kantor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS


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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA392953)

(Los Angeles County)

Vincent I. Mestre appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)) and unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted that he suffered a prior strike conviction and served a prior prison. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to state prison for seven years.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

Jennifer E., the victim, lived with her five children. Appellant lived with her for about a year. Jennifer owned a black Chevy Tahoe that appellant often used, with her consent.

On August 24, 2011, appellant drove Jennifer and three of her children home in her Tahoe. Appellant got out of the Tahoe first. As Jennifer stepped from the Tahoe, appellant slammed its door on her face and arms.

On September 28, 2011, appellant was driving Jennifer's Tahoe. She did not give him permission to drive it that day.

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.

Ray G. Jurado, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

_________________

Lori E. Kantor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


Summaries of

People v. Mestre

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Jun 24, 2013
2d Crim. No. B242243 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2013)
Case details for

People v. Mestre

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VINCENT I. MESTRE, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

Date published: Jun 24, 2013

Citations

2d Crim. No. B242243 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2013)