From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reid

Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.
Nov 7, 2003
No. F042911 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2003)

Opinion

F042911.

11-7-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BATIS REID, Defendant and Appellant.

Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Harris, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Dawson, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On December 30, 2002, an information was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County charging appellant Batis Reid with count I, evading an officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); count II, possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)); and count III, misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). It was further alleged appellant suffered one prior felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations.

All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

On February 20, 2003, appellant pleaded no contest to count I, evading an officer with willful disregard, and admitted one prior strike, and the court granted the prosecutions motion to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations.

On April 21, 2003, the court denied appellants motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction and denied probation. The court imposed the midterm of two years for count I and doubled the term to four years as the appropriate second-strike sentence. The court awarded 144 days of actual credits and 72 days of custody credits, for a total of 216 days. The court also ordered appellant to pay an $800 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and an $800 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45, but stayed the payment of the section 1202.45 fine subject to the successful completion of parole.

On April 22, 2003, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On July 31, 2003, the trial court filed an order nunc pro tunc to correct appellants credits to 154 days of actual credits and 77 days of custody credits, for a total of 231 days, and ordered an amended abstract of judgment prepared and sent to the California Department of Corrections.

FACTS

At 12:55 p.m. on November 19, 2002, Fresno Police Officer Mark Rodriques and his partner were driving an unmarked car at Chestnut Avenue and Tulare Street when they observed a green Ford Explorer with the rear window completely knocked out. They also noticed there were different license plates on the front and back of the vehicle. The officers turned their car around to follow the Ford and determined the front license plate was registered to that vehicle. They called for a marked backup unit to perform a traffic stop but continued to follow the Ford.

The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing and probation report.

A marked patrol car quickly arrived and the officers activated the signal lights for a traffic stop. Officer Rodriques continued to follow both vehicles and watched as the Ford failed to stop for either the patrol cars signal lights or siren. The Ford turned on Rogers Lane, just west of Clovis Avenue, and stopped in a residential carport area. Officer Rodriques testified the driver and the passenger looked back to the marked patrol car, and the vehicles doors appeared to open and quickly close. The Ford accelerated and drove away through the carport area.

Several units joined the pursuit of the Ford as it went through several stop signs and traveled in excess of 70 miles per hour in a residential area. The officers decided to discontinue the active pursuit because of the potential danger from a high-speed chase through a residential area. However, Officer Rodriques and the other units followed the Ford from a distance without the signal lights and sirens.

The Ford continued to go through red lights and stop signs. It hit a stop sign and tree stump at the intersection of Peach and Madison, and crashed into a residential fence. When the officers reached the intersection, both the driver and passenger doors were open and no one was in the Ford. The officers established a perimeter and apprehended Herbert Baker at Peach and Belmont. Appellant Batis Reid was found hiding under a pile of debris in a nearby residential yard and was taken into custody without incident. A witness informed the officers that Baker had thrown an object over a particular residential fence as he ran from the Ford. The officers searched the area and found a .22-caliber semi-automatic handgun in the backyard. Officer Rodriques identified both appellant and Baker as the occupants of the Ford based on his earlier observations.

Officer Rodriques separately interviewed appellant and Baker at the police department. Baker initially denied any knowledge of the weapon. Baker then admitted he had the gun and tossed it over the fence, and claimed he received it from an unknown Asian a day or two earlier. Officer Rodriques also spoke with appellant, who denied any knowledge of the gun but then claimed Baker pulled the gun and forced him to drive. Officer Rodriques asked appellant if he was the victim of a carjacking, but appellant didnt respond and became evasive. Rodriques said he was going to talk to Baker again, and appellant said he should do what he had to do.

Officer Rodriques returned to Baker, who admitted he ran from the Ford and threw away the gun because it was loaded. Baker knew appellant was on parole and would be in a lot of trouble if he was found in possession of the gun. Rodriques advised Baker that appellant claimed to have been carjacked. Baker insisted he didnt carjack anyone. Baker stated appellant approached him earlier that day and offered to sell the gun for $100. Baker agreed to pay appellant later, and placed the gun under the Fords front passenger seat as they drove around. Baker stated that appellant accelerated and fled when the police tried to perform the traffic stop.

Officer Rodriques testified appellant and Baker had been placed in separate interview rooms, but Baker yelled at appellant through the wall: "`Whyd you do me like that? You know I didnt jack you." Appellant shouted back: "`I had to do what I had to do. I had no choice. Im a third striker. The gun would finish me."

Officer Rodriques escorted appellant to be booked and appellant asked to speak with him. Appellant recanted his story about being carjacked by Baker. Rodriques asked about the Fords license plates, and appellant said the Fords registration had expired and he swapped the rear plate because he didnt want to be stopped for the expired registration.

DISCUSSION

Appellants appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which adequately summarizes the facts and adequately cites to the record, which raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) By letter of July 7, 2003, this court invited appellant to submit additional briefing and state any grounds of appeal he may wish this court to consider. Appellant has not done so.

Our independent review discloses no reasonably arguable appellate issues. "[A]n arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsels professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment." (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Reid

Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.
Nov 7, 2003
No. F042911 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Reid

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BATIS REID, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.

Date published: Nov 7, 2003

Citations

No. F042911 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2003)