P. v. Estrada
Filed 4/17/07 P. v. Estrada CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ESTRADA, Defendant and Appellant. | B193086 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA093137) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patrick T. Meyers, Judge. Affirmed.
James R. Bostwick, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Estrada appeals from judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of petty theft with a prior[1](Pen. Code, 666, 484, subd. (a)) and his admission that he suffered two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) (d) and 667, subds. (b) (i)) and served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). He was sentenced to prison for five years, consisting of the middle term of two years, doubled to four years pursuant to Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (e)(1) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1), plus one year for one prior prison term enhancement. The remaining prior prison term enhancements were stricken.[2]
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On December 22, 2006, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EPSTEIN, P. J.
We concur:
WILLHITE, J.
MANELLA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] He admitted for purposes of the trial that on or about October 23, 2000, he had been convicted of violating Penal Code section 666, petty theft with a prior and spent more than one day in custody. As a result of the admission, the jury was not informed of this prior conviction.
[2] The record established that on December 26, 2005, shortly after 7:00 p.m., appellant ran out of a Rite-Aid store on Florence Avenue in Los Angeles with store merchandise in one of the stores blue shopping baskets. The guard did not see appellant pay for the merchandise. Appellant refused to stop after the stores security guard ordered him to do so and rode away on a bicycle. He was observed by deputy sheriffs riding a bicycle without a headlight on the wrong side of the road. When the officers attempted to stop him for traffic violations, appellant disregarded their commands. He, thereafter, dropped the bike and the basket, squeezed through a gate and ran. He was later found hiding under a car in a driveway and spontaneously stated, I shouldnt have taken that shit. The merchandise was recovered and valued at $322.89. Witnesses for the defense testified appellant was at a neighborhood party when he was arrested. An investigator with the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Office testified he had interviewed the Rite-Aid security guard about a month before trial. The guard stated that when he had seen appellant in court a couple of weeks after the incident, appellant looked different; appellant appeared to be the same person he saw in the police car on the night of the incident but the guard was not sure. The security guard identified appellant as the thief by the color of his shirt, the side view of his face and basically stated it had to be him because he was in a police car.
