Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC776323
Duffy, J.
Pablo Lozano Moran, the defendant herein, pleaded no contest to theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) He admitted the truth of two allegations subjecting him to punishment under the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior prison term enhancement allegations (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss one or both of his two strike priors under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and dismissed one of them in the interest of justice. Thereafter the court sentenced defendant to eight years in state prison as a second-strike offender—a doubled term of six years under the Three Strikes law for the current offense (Pen. Code, §§ 18, 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and two years for the prison priors (id., 667.5, subd. (b)).
Counsel for defendant has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he did not do so.
FACTS
We derive the facts from the probation report. On August 4, 2007, defendant was caught driving a stolen automobile. He denied stealing it, and claimed he had borrowed it from an individual nicknamed “Primo.” He had no means of contacting Primo and could not describe him. The vehicle had been reported stolen on May 27, 2007. After defendant’s arrest, the victim was contacted, and she stated that she did not know defendant and had not given him permission to use the vehicle.
Defendant’s denial of the actual stealing of the vehicle was based on his assertion that on the day the victim reported it stolen he was in jail. He told the probation officer that a friend had lent it to him, and it was on the basis of that transaction that he pleaded no contest to Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), although he was not aware that the vehicle had been stolen.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, keeping in mind that our review is limited to grounds for appeal that occurred after entry of defendant’s no contest plea and do not affect the plea’s validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1), (b)(4)(B).) We agree with counsel for defendant that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Therefore we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR. Mihara, Acting P. J., McAdams, J.