Opinion
E065931
02-02-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEREK JOHN NAVA, Defendant and Appellant.
Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF1501117) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elisabeth Sichel, Judge. Affirmed. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Derek John Nava is on misdemeanor probation after a jury convicted him of evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)), but acquitted him of spousal battery (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On the evening of January 29, 2015, police officers responded to a grocery store in Riverside to detain a domestic violence suspect. Defendant was in the store parking lot in a silver Honda Accord. An officer in uniform drove toward the Accord in his black and white police car. Defendant reversed his car at a high rate of speed toward the police car. The officer then activated the police car's siren and lights. Defendant drove forward through the parking lot. As he exited the parking lot, defendant turned right onto California Avenue, without stopping at the stop sign. Defendant drove for less than one mile at 35 to 40 miles an hour, again failing to stop at another stop sign, before pulling over.
On August 13, 2015, the People filed an information charging defendant with spousal battery and misdemeanor evading a peace officer. On March 25, 2016, a jury convicted defendant of evading a peace officer, but acquitted him of spousal battery.
On April 1, 2016, the trial court sentenced defendant to 36 months of summary probation, with a condition that he serve 90 days in county jail, with credit for eight days of custody and eight days of conduct credit.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant's appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a brief statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court undertake an independent review of the record. We have also afforded defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the entire record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: HOLLENHORST
J. McKINSTER
J.