P. v. McCaslin

Filed 5/10/07 P. v. McCaslin CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Appellant Patrick Keith McCaslin appeals from his conviction, following a plea of guilty to count two of the information, charging the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a).) His appellate counsel has raised no issues on appeal, and asks 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.) Appellant has also been informed of his right to file supplemental briefing, and he has not done so. We find no errors or other issues requiring further briefing, after our review of the entire record, and therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

We briefly summarize the factual and procedural history of this case as follows. On March 24, 2006, the police department of the City of Eureka received a report that a vehicle had been stolen from a parking lot at a food store. A security videotape from the store showed appellant removing the keys to the stolen vehicle from the personal effects of a store employee.

On May 5, 2006, an information was filed, charging appellant with three counts: (1) petty theft with prior convictions (count one) in violation of Penal Code section 666; (2) the unlawful taking of a vehicle, in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a); and (3) petty theft with prior convictions (count three) in violation of Penal Code section 666. One prior strike conviction, and four other prior conviction allegations, were also charged.

Appellant subsequently entered into a negotiated plea agreement, under which he pled guilty to count two, unlawful taking of a vehicle, on condition that the People would dismiss the other counts and all prior conviction allegations, except for one prior prison term enhancement allegation, which appellant would admit; and he would receive a stipulated sentence of the middle term of two years in prison, with one additional year for the prior prison term, for a total of three years in prison. Appellant waived his rights at the time he entered his plea of guilty. The trial court imposed the previously stipulated sentence of three years, in accordance with the plea agreement.

Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. There was a factual basis for the plea. The total sentence of three years imposed by the trial court was in accord with the plea bargain. Although appellant himself has been given the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing on appeal, he has not done so. Consequently, the record shows appellant received due process, and we find no legal issues that require further briefing on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

NEEDHAM, J.

We concur.

JONES, P. J.

SIMONS, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.