Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN257868, Aaron H. Katz, Judge.
BENKE, J.
A jury convicted Luis Alejandro Ortiz of unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). In a separate proceeding, Ortiz admitted he had previously been convicted of buying or receiving a stolen vehicle within the meaning of Penal Code section 666.5, subdivision (a). As a result of these offenses, Ortiz's probation stemming from a 2007 conviction of corporal injury to a spouse (case No. SCD205455) was revoked.
The trial court sentenced Ortiz to a total of four years four months in prison. The court imposed the middle term of three years for unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)), stayed the middle term for receiving stolen property pursuant to Penal Code section 654 and imposed a concurrent two-year sentence for the methamphetamine possession. The court also imposed a consecutive term of 16 months for the probation violation in case No. SCD205455.
FACTS
On February 8, 2009, Elizabeth Jorgensen's 2008 Chevrolet Suburban SUV was stolen from the parking lot of her church in Ramona. Jorgensen, who had left the keys to the vehicle on the floorboard and her purse in the center console, discovered the theft at about 12:20 p.m. Jorgensen reported the theft to the sheriff's department between 12:35 p.m. and 12:40 p.m. She also contacted OnStar, a service that, among other things, can track a vehicle's location.
Relying on a report from OnStar about the location of the Suburban, two sheriff deputies waited at the intersection of Valley Center Road and Highway 76 to intercept the vehicle. At about 1:30 p.m., the deputies, each driving a marked sheriff's vehicle, spotted a Suburban matching the description of the stolen vehicle and pulled in behind it. Within 200 yards, the driver of the Suburban made a left turn and entered the parking lot of a fire station. Neither deputy had activated the overhead lights or siren on his vehicle. The two deputies waited until a third deputy arrived to conduct a "hot stop," which is normal procedure. When the third deputy arrived, he ordered Ortiz, who was driving the Suburban, to get out of the vehicle while the other two deputies pointed their weapons at Ortiz. The third deputy searched Ortiz and found a Visa credit card issued to Jorgensen in his shirt pocket, Jorgensen's checkbook in his back pants pocket and a white crystal-like powdery substance in a plastic bag in his front pants pocket. The white substance was 0.28 grams of methamphetamine, which is a useable amount. After the deputy found the methamphetamine, Ortiz told him that he was a good guy and he had problems because he "got into drugs."
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle; (2) whether the trial court was required sua sponte to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of joyriding; (3) whether Ortiz's constitutional rights were violated by the admission of Ortiz's statements to the deputy after the methamphetamine was found; (4) whether the court abused its discretion in imposing the middle term on the unlawful taking and driving a vehicle count; (5) whether the court gave proper reasons for imposing consecutive sentences; (6) whether the court abused its discretion by denying probation; and (7) whether Ortiz's credits were correctly calculated.
We granted Ortiz permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no other reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Ortiz on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J.IRION, J.