Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County Nos. 1407515, 1412254, Marie S. Silveira, Judge.
Mark Shenfield, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Kane, J.
On February 25, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement covering two separate cases, in Stanislaus County Superior Court case No. 1407515 (case No. 1407515) appellant, Luis Enrique Romo, pled no contest to receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)) and admitted a “strike” allegation, and in Stanislaus County Superior Court case No. 1412254 (case No. 1412254), he pled no contest to unauthorized possession of marijuana in county jail (Pen. Code, § 4573.8). Also pursuant to the agreement, the court struck a strike allegation in the latter case, a charge of misdemeanor possession of a device used for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364) in the former case, and an enhancement allegation that he had served a prior prison term for a prior felony conviction (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 April 13, 2010, the court imposed a prison term of three years four months, consisting of the following: in case No. 1407515, 16 months on the substantive offense, doubled pursuant to the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1); 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), for a total of 32 months, and a consecutive eight-month term in case No. 1412254. Thereafter, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and the court, pursuant to appellant’s request, issued 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We will affirm.
FACTS
Our factual statement in Case No. 1407515is taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing in that case.
Victor Bettencourt was watching his father’s home in August 2009 while his father was out of the country. On August 15, 2009, Bettencourt discovered that his father’s van was missing; it had been parked in the garage. He called the police.
Twelve days later, City of Newman Police Officer Jason Hutchins, acting on an anonymous tip, went to an address in Newman, where he saw appellant loading or unloading a van. The officer made contact with appellant, determined appellant was on probation, and searched appellant and the van. Prior to the search, Officer Hutchins learned from dispatch that the van had been reported stolen; the van was, in fact, Bettencourt’s father’s van. During the search of appellant, the officer found a glass pipe and substance that “tested presumptive positive” as methamphetamine in appellant’s pocket.
Case No. 1412254
At the time appellant entered his plea, the prosecutor recited the following as the factual basis for the plea: On December 11, 2009, while appellant was an inmate at the Stanislaus County Honor Farm, a marijuana cigarette was found in his jacket pocket. Appellant admitted he knowingly possessed the contraband.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2010, appellant made a motion for the appointment of substitute counsel. The court denied the motion. On April 12, 2010, appellant made a second motion for the appointment of substitute counsel, which the court also denied.
DISCUSSION
Following independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.