IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
July 11, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
PRESTON LOUIS ROY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 09F08445)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.
P. v. Roy
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
The Sacramento Police Department auto theft unit set up a "bait car"*fn1 to target car thieves. The car was equipped with a camera, microphone and trackable GPS and officers left the keys in the car. Each entry into the car starts the audio/video recording. Defendant Preston Louis Roy came upon the car at 2:00 a.m. on November 15, 2009. He saw the keys in the car, started the engine, and took the keys out of the car. Later that morning, defendant rode his bicycle to get coffee on his way to work. Because it was cold, as he passed the Acura he thought he "might as well" drive to get the coffee rather than riding his bicycle. He planned to return the car, but on his way to coffee he noticed a number of police cars following him with their lights engaged so he pulled over. After defendant got out of the car he was arrested and, in a search conducted incident to that arrest, officers found two counterfeit one hundred dollar bills in his wallet. He had been given the counterfeit bills as payment from a friend for work he did on a car. He realized the bills were counterfeit and intended to confront his friend. He did not intend to use the bills.
Defendant was charged with unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and possession of counterfeit currency. (Pen. Code, § 476.)*fn2 It was also alleged he had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had one prior strike conviction. (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c), 1170.12, 667, subds. (b)-(i).)
The day before the matter was set for jury trial, defendant made a Marsden*fn3 motion. The court denied the motion finding there was no basis to find defense counsel's representation inadequate or incompetent. Defendant then made a Faretta*fn4 motion and made clear he would need at least a one-month continuance. The court denied the motion, finding it untimely.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of vehicle theft, but not guilty of possession of counterfeit currency. In bifurcated proceedings, defendant admitted the four prison term and strike allegations. The court denied defendant's motion to reduce his felony vehicle theft to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b), and to strike his prior strike pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of eight years in state prison, consisting of a midterm of two years for his vehicle theft conviction, doubled due to his admitted prior strike, consecutive to four additional years, cobbled from one year each for his four prior prison terms. He was awarded 251 days of actual time and 124 days of good time credits under section 4019, for a total of 375 days of credit.*fn5
Appointed counsel set forth the facts of the case and requested this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BUTZ , J. MURRAY , J.