Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jeffrey Prevost, Judge, Super.Ct.No. BAF003500
Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RICHLI, J.
OPINION
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Sean Keith Palmer was charged by felony information with one count of carjacking. (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a).) The information also alleged (1) four strike priors (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)), (2) two serious felony priors (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), and (3) two prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
A jury convicted defendant of the carjacking count. Defendant waived a jury trial on his prior convictions; the trial court found all the priors to be true.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike his strike priors under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to the term of 35 years to life in state prison. Sentence on the one-year prior prison terms was ordered stayed and 1045 days of custody credits were awarded. A $200 restitution fine was imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and an additional parole fine of $200 was imposed under Penal Code section 1202.45, subdivision (b), which was suspended unless parole is revoked.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2004, the 16-year-old victim, while on break from his job at Stater Bros. market, was sitting in his car in the parking lot. The windows were up and the car was running. Defendant approached the victim’s car and started to bang on the window. Defendant stated that he had a gun, knew karate, and told the victim to get out of the car. A few seconds later, defendant told the victim that he would smash the window if the victim did not exit the car. Defendant made a gesture with his hand, which imitated a gun. Defendant’s other hand was behind his back.
The victim was scared and exited the car. Defendant then entered the car and drove off. Someone called 911 and the police arrived within a few minutes. The victim identified defendant in an in-field showup.
The victim’s car was located within 15 to 20 minutes after the incident occurred, four to five miles from where the carjacking occurred. It was unattended, in an irrigation trench on the right shoulder of the highway, and had sustained significant damage. An investigating officer determined that before ending up on the shoulder, defendant had most likely collided with a road sign in a center divider about three-quarters of a mile west of the market. The car probably had been involved in one or more undetermined collisions in the four additional miles the car traveled.
Defendant had been arrested by the time the car was located. Defendant was located by an officer who responded to a telephone call about someone yelling near a store, looking into vehicles, and checking door handles. Defendant gave a false name to the officer who initially contacted him. Defendant did not say anything that the officer felt was abnormal or odd.
Following his arrest, defendant admitted to telling the victim that he would smash the victim’s car window if the victim did not exit the vehicle. During the trial, defense counsel attempted to establish that defendant lacked the specific intent to commit the crime because he was intoxicated.
III
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief; he has not done so.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P. J., McKINSTER, J.