P. v. Barajas
Filed 8/10/07 P. v. Barajas CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL A. BARAJAS, Defendant and Appellant. | H030643 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. CC468475, CC458183) |
Defendant Miguel A. Barajas pled no contest to five charges and guilty to one in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC458183 and admitted four enhancements and no contest to the single count of failing to appear while released on bail in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC468475. In exchange for this plea, the trial court agreed to and did sentence defendant to two years in state prison consecutive to his nine year, four month, sentence in Santa Clara County Superior Court case No. CC074263. (An appeal of the latter case is pending before this court in case No. H030602.) This appeal of case Nos. CC458183 and CC468475 ensued.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant did not respond.
FACTS
On June 24, 2004, defendant fled Santa Clara police officers who were attempting to stop him during a pursuit when he sped up, made an unsafe lane change, drove 60 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone, dumped white powder onto the street and threw a baggie with white powder out of the window. Defendant then stopped, but when the police unit pulled in front of his car, he made a u-turn, swerving around another police van and threw cash out the car window. He then stopped at a gas station. Defendants 16-year-old son, Carlos M., was in the passenger seat. When defendants car was searched, a gram of crystal methamphetamine was found scattered on the floor. Along the road where defendant had thrown objects out of his car, a cell phone, a baggie without any white powder, and $3,400 in cash were found. While out on bail, defendant failed to appear for a court date in case No. CC074263. He was arrested 18 months later.
In case No. CC458183, defendant was charged with possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11378) with the enhancement that defendant was ineligible for probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.07; causing or permitting a child to suffer or inflicting pain or suffering on a child, Carlos M. (id., 273a, subd. (a)); reckless driving while evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)); resisting arrest (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)); destroying or concealing evidence (id., 135); and driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code 14601.1, subd. (a)). The information included four three-year enhancements pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c). Case No. CC468475 charged defendant with failing to appear while released on bail (Pen. Code, 1320.5).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant did not respond.
Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal. Specifically, we have reviewed the clerks transcript, which contains the preliminary hearing transcripts of both cases, the complaints, a sentencing memorandum, and the abstract of judgment, and the reporters change of plea transcript. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Premo, J.
WE CONCUR:
Rushing, P.J.
Elia, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
