>P. v. Mestre

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 6/24/13  P. v. Mestre CA2/6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 

SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION
SIX

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,       Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   VINCENT I. MESTRE,       Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B242243 (Super. Ct. No. BA392953) (Los Angeles County)

 

                        Vincent I. Mestre
appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of corporal injury
to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
and unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd.
(a)).  Appellant admitted that he
suffered a prior strike conviction and served a prior prison.  (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds.
(a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).)  The trial
court sentenced him to state prison
for seven years.

                        Jennifer E., the victim,
lived with her five children.  Appellant
lived with her for about a year.  Jennifer
owned a black Chevy Tahoe that appellant often used, with her consent.

                        On August 24, 2011, appellant drove Jennifer and
three of her children home in her Tahoe. 
Appellant got out of the Tahoe first. 
As Jennifer stepped from the Tahoe, appellant slammed its door on her href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">face and arms.

                        On September 28, 2011, appellant was driving
Jennifer’s Tahoe.  She did not give him
permission to drive it that day.

                        We appointed href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">counsel to represent appellant on
appeal.  Counsel filed a brief raising no
issues and requesting our independent
review pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.  We notified
appellant that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he wished us
to consider.  We have received no
response from appellant.

                        We have reviewed the
entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied
with her responsibilities and that no arguable
issues exist.  (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; >People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p.
441.)

DISPOSITION

                        The judgment is
affirmed.

                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 

 

 

 

                                                                        PERREN,
J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

                        GILBERT, P.J.

 

 

 

                        YEGAN, J.
clear=all >

Ray G. Jurado, Judge

Superior
Court County
of Los Angeles

 

______________________________

 

 

                        Lori E. Kantor, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

                        No appearance for
Plaintiff and Respondent.