Opinion
A120301
9-3-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS SAMUEL PEREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
Counsel for appellant Jesus Samuel Perez has filed a brief raising no specific issues and asking for our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has also notified appellant of this filing and of his right to inform the court of any appellate issues. We have received no communication from appellant himself. Having conducted the requisite review, we conclude no arguable issues exist on appeal and affirm.
Facts
Appellant was charged by information with three felony counts arising from a single incident: taking or driving a stolen vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d), and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Appellant moved unsuccessfully to have trial of the drug charge severed from trial on the balance of the information. However, appellant successfully prevented the prosecution from presenting evidence of prior criminal offenses, offered to prove his state of mind at the time of the charged offenses.
According to evidence presented by the People, the vehicle owner loaned his car to a friend; the car was stolen while it was in the friends possession. Neither the owner nor the friend knew appellant, and neither gave him permission to take or drive the car. Additionally, the cars ignition and stereo were intact at the time of the theft. Three days later, appellant was arrested after he was seen driving the car. The dashboard was damaged, and the stereo missing. The steering column was damaged; the ignition punched, and a knife was inserted for purposes of starting the car. Appellant possessed a small quantity of methamphetamine at the time of his arrest. Appellant did not testify at trial and did not call any witnesses.
The jury convicted appellant of all three counts. Although the prosecutor argued for a prison sentence, the court suspended sentence, placed appellant on probation, and ordered him to serve 364 days in county jail as a condition of probation. The court also imposed restitution and various fines.
The court originally imposed a condition of 365 days in jail but amended the order to 364 days at defense counsels request, and over the prosecutors objection, in order to ameliorate any potential immigration consequences.
The jury was properly instructed. Appellant was well and vigorously represented. The verdicts were supported by the evidence, and the sentence was a lawful one. We find no arguable issues on appeal and affirm the judgment.
We concur:
JONES, P. J.
SIMONS, J.