From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 4, 2009
No. F056512 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2009)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County Super. Ct. No. BF120080A. Jerold L. Turner, Judge.

Rex A. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Dawson, J.

By information filed on February 14, 2008, it was alleged as follows: Appellant Frank Rodriguez, Jr. committed two counts of unlawfully taking or driving a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), four counts of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and individual counts of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (d)), evading a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1) and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)); he had suffered a “strike”; and he had served three separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

We use the term “strike” as a synonym for “prior felony conviction” within the meaning of the “three strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12), i.e., a prior felony conviction or juvenile adjudication that subjects a defendant to the increased punishment specified in the three strikes law.

On August 13, 2008, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pled no contest to one count of receiving stolen property and admitted the strike allegation and one prior prison term enhancement allegation. Also, pursuant to the plea agreement, the court dismissed the remaining counts and special allegations.

On November 3, 2008, the court denied appellant’s motion to strike the strike and imposed a prison term of seven years, consisting of the three-year upper term on the instant offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), plus one year on the prior prison term enhancement.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.

FACTS

The report of the probation officer indicates the following. On October 5, 2007, police officers executed a stop of a vehicle driven by appellant, “who was wanted by state parole.” Officers searched the vehicle and found a wallet and checkbook belonging to Kenneth Pierce, who, on November 26, 2007, reported the items stolen in a burglary of his car.

DISCUSSION

Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Aug 4, 2009
No. F056512 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK RODRIGUEZ, JR., Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 4, 2009

Citations

No. F056512 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2009)