P. v. Hayes

Filed 9/26/07 P. v. Hayes CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

Defendant Joshua Justice Hayes appeals a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty to possession of stolen property. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.

According to testimony at the preliminary hearing, Gary Whitmer, a police officer with the City of Eureka, saw defendant driving a car on April 25, 2006. He recognized defendant, and knew there was a warrant for his arrest. He followed defendant and had a warrant check performed, which confirmed that defendant was still wanted. He temporarily lost sight of the car defendant was driving, but found it parked in a carport. The officer who was accompanying Whitmer looked for defendant, saw him running away, and chased him. Whitmer and two other officers took defendant into custody. An inventory search of the car revealed a folding knife, a box of syringes, ammunition, and bags with camouflage equipment and waders. The box of syringes had a mailing label on it directed to John Frederickson of Arcata.

Officers later contacted Frederickson, who identified the ammunition, the camouflage equipment, and the syringes as his. He had not given anyone permission to take his property. The items had been taken from a house on his property. He had not been living there when the items were taken, but visited it after speaking with the police, and found that various items were missing and that things in the house had been thrown around. The house had a gun safe, which had been damaged in an apparent attempt to open it.

Whitmer contacted the owner of the car defendant had been driving, who told him that the items seized from the car did not belong to her. The owners daughter, who had been with defendant in the car, told Whitmer that she might have had [defendant] put a black garbage bag in the trunk, and that the bags contained items that someone had given her, which she intended to take to Goodwill.

Defendant was charged in count one with felony possession of stolen property (Pen. Code,[1] 496, subd. (a)), in count two with unlawful possession of ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)), in count three with resisting or obstructing a police officer ( 148, subd. (a)(1)), and in count four with driving while his driving privileges were suspended or revoked (Veh. Code, 14601, subd. (a)). The information included prior conviction and prior prison term allegations pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e), section 667.5, subdivision (b), and section 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c). Defendant initially pled not guilty to the charges and denied the special allegations.

At the outset of trial, defendant entered into a plea agreement, under which he pled guilty to possession of stolen property and admitted a prior prison term enhancement and a prior strike allegation. All remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.[2] Under the terms of the agreement, defendant would try to gain admission to the Delancey Street program, and if he were unsuccessful in doing so, would be sentenced to the midterm of two years for the violation of section 496, doubled as a result of the prior conviction allegation, and the prior prison term allegation would be dismissed.

Defendant applied for a place at the Delancey Street program, but was told the program did not have room for him. The trial court sentenced him to four years in prison pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, and imposed restitution fines.

Defendant was represented by counsel. He was advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea. His sentence was calculated correctly, and was consistent with the plea agreement. There are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.

___________________________

REARDON, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

[1] All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] He also pled guilty to driving with a suspended or revoked license in a case that is not before us on this appeal. Under the plea agreement, the time for that conviction would run concurrently with the time for possession of stolen property.