P. v. Reed
Filed 7/24/07 P. v. Reed 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A117004
v. (Napa County
Super. Ct. No. CR133904)
CHARLES SPENCER REED,
Defendant and Appellant.
______________________________________/
Charles Spencer Reed appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to evading a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)), unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to file such a brief.
On February 17, 2007, a peace officer tried to stop appellant for several Vehicle Code violations. Appellant led the officer on a high speed chase through Vallejo and then tried to flee on foot. The officer was able to arrest appellant after a chase and a brief struggle.
Based on these facts, a complaint was filed charging appellant with, inter alia, the offenses set forth above. The complaint also alleged appellant had one prior strike within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12), and that appellant had served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).)
The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant agreed to plead no contest to the offenses we have set forth above. In exchange, another count would be dismissed and appellant would be sentenced to a 32-month term.
Subsequently, the court sentenced appellant to the agreed 32-month term.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Prior to accepting appellants plea, the court explained to appellant the Constitutional rights he would be waiving. The court also explained to appellant the consequences of his plea. The sentence imposed was consistent with the plea bargain. Appellant was represented by adequate counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
________________________
Simons, J.
________________________
Gemello, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
