P. v. Renner

Filed 1/19/07  P. v. Renner CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  Erik Michael Kaiser, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

            Defendant and appellant Gina Marie Renner appeals her conviction of one count of receiving a stolen vehicle.  (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a).)^[1]  Her appointed counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Anthony Matthew Price reported his car stolen on or about February 27, 2005.  The vehicle had Texas license plates at the time it was stolen.  On May 17, 2005, a police officer responding to a complaint of loud music went to a residence in Riverside and found the stolen car parked in the driveway.  The vehicle had no license plates, but only paper license plates affixed.  The officer became suspicious because thieves often put paper plates on stolen cars to prevent police from doing a license check.  He ran the vehicle identification number, which returned the report of Price's stolen vehicle.

            The homeowner, Dorina Urbalejo, denied any knowledge about the car.  Urbalejo at first said she was home alone.  Then she admitted her young daughter was with her.  It turned out that Urbalejo had lied and two other women were present:  defendant and Rachel Zubia.  The officer had visited the home before and had seen defendant there.  Defendant was staying at the Urbalejo residence at this time.

            Urbalejo, defendant, and Zubia were detained outside the residence while officers waited for a tow truck to impound the recovered car.  All three women initially denied any knowledge of or connection to the car.  As the tow truck driver prepared to break into the car, however, defendant relented and said she knew where the keys were.  She directed Zubia to show the officers the keys, which were then recovered from the toilet bowl in the bathroom.  The keys fit the doors and ignition, and the remote control device operated the locks.  Defendant then asked for her personal belongings from the car.  Defendant explained that her jacket and other property were in the car because a man named â€