IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
September 15, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
JOSEPH PAUL CABRERA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. Nos. SF104427A, SF104475A, SF104498A, SF104589A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Cabrera
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Paul Cabrera asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no entitlement to additional presentence credit. We will affirm the judgment.
On March 17, 2007, defendant was drinking with Tywayne Crowder at someone's home. A fight broke out and defendant got mad at Crowder because he did not help in the fight. Three days later, defendant directed another person to punch Crowder while defendant watched. A few minutes later, defendant drove into another car driven by Crowder's aunt, Veotha Shackleford.
Defendant was charged in case No. SF104589A with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and simple battery (§ 242). It was also alleged that he had two strikes and three prior prison terms (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subd. (d), 667.5).
On April 1, 2007, Port of Stockton police tried to stop defendant's car because he did not show the identification required to enter the port. Defendant sped away, nearly hitting a port technician. Defendant evaded pursuit by driving over double yellow lines, running a stop sign, and driving up to 80 miles per hour.
That same month, defendant went to a Stockton auto dealership and asked to test drive a car. He drove off before an employee could accompany him. Defendant evaded law enforcement by driving over 100 mph.
Defendant subsequently went to another auto dealer and asked to test drive a Ford Mustang, showing another person's driver's license to the salesperson. The salesperson drove the Mustang first, then stopped at an intersection to let defendant drive. Defendant locked the door and drove off when the salesperson got out of the car to change seats. A California Highway Patrol officer later spotted the stolen Mustang and pursued defendant. The chase ended when defendant, driving around 100 mph, lost control of the Mustang and hit a tree.
Defendant was charged in case No. SF104498A with three counts of felony evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and two counts of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). It was also alleged that he had two strikes and three prior prison terms (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subd. (d), 667.5).
Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon in case No. SF104589A, three counts of felony evasion in case No. SF104498A, dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)) in case No. SF110795A,*fn2 and he admitted a single strike allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant in all three cases, imposing a stipulated term of 18 years in prison and ordering various fines and fees. The trial court awarded custody credit of 1,178 days and conduct credit of 176 days in case No. SF104589A (later modifying the conduct credit to 589 days), and custody credit of 19 days and conduct credit of two days in case No. SF104498A.
Defendant waived his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement and his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 elapsed, and we 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: BLEASE , Acting P. J. HULL , J.