P. v. Williams

Filed 7/13/07 P. v. Williams CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Counsel appointed for defendant Vijay Kaheel Williams has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he elected not to do so; he did file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which we deny by separate order. We have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm.

Our review reveals that following a preliminary examination, an information was filed in which defendant was charged with second degree burglary (Pen. Code,  459); receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,  496); recklessly driving a motor vehicle while being pursued by a peace officer (Veh. Code,  2800.2, subd. (a)); and leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code,  20001, subd. (a)). Dominic Parker was named as a codefendant on the burglary and receiving counts.

At the trial, the jury heard evidence which, viewed most favorably to the prosecution (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403), showed the following:

Early on the morning of December 15, 2005, Leslie Morris, the manager of a Cingular Wireless store in Vacaville, went to her store after hearing that someone had broken into it. At the store, she met police officers, and saw that a window pane had been removed, a door had been pried open, and more than 60 cell phones were missing. The stores video surveillance camera showed that two men had, without permission, been inside the store. The video tape was played for the jury and received in evidence.

Within minutes of Ms. Morriss learning of the break-in, California Highway Patrol Officers Deters and Gardner observed a black Lexus being driven on Highway 80 at approximately 100 m.p.h. The officers pursued, without activating the lights or siren on their marked patrol cruiser. According to Officer Deters, who was driving, at one point I was doing 130 miles an hour [and] still not catching up to him. Officer Gardner confirmed the speed, which was twice the posted limit.

The officers followed the Lexus off the freeway. As they came up behind the Lexus, Deters activated the flashing light bar on his cruiser. The Lexus had two occupants. The driver of the Lexus looked back at the officers, and then accelerated past a stop sign and turned left through an intersection. The officers activated the siren and continued the pursuit down Abernathy Road. The Lexus went through an intersection red light at 90 m.p.h., far in excess of the posted speed limit.

Still going at about 90 m.p.h., the Lexus ran through another intersection red light on Abernathy. It then turned onto Chadbourne Road, and ran through a another stop sign. Further down Chadbourne, the Lexus failed to negotiate a turn, hit an embankment, and overturned. The officers found Parker 20 to 40 feet from the wreck, entangled in a barbed wire fence. Defendant could not be found, even with the aid of a search dog and a helicopter. A brief search of the vehicle produced documents identifying Sydel Johnson as the owner of the Lexus. After the Lexus had been impounded, more than 50 cell phones, all brand new in Cingular boxes, were found in the trunk, along with a crowbar. Ms. Morris confirmed that the phones were taken from her store.

Officer Deters made positive in-court identifications of defendant as the driver of the Lexus, and Parker as the passenger. Officer Deters recognized Parker, but not defendant, as one of the men depicted on the Cingular stores surveillance video.

Officer Gardner recalled the Lexus going through one more stoplight, and one more stop sign, than did Officer Deters. Gardner also identified defendant as the driver at the trial. Gardner recorded the pursuit of the Lexus as lasting ten minutes.

A computer records search confirmed that the Lexus belonged to Sydel Johnson, who testified that defendant was an-off-and-on cohabitant with her. Johnson knew Parker as defendants friend. Sometime between 11 p.m. and midnight on December 14, Johnson noticed that defendant had taken her Lexus. Defendant had his own set of keys for the car.

Defendant did not testify.

After deliberating for less than five hours, including a break for lunch, the jury found defendant, and Parker, guilty as charged on all counts.

Although the trial court did not agree with the recommendation of the probation officer, and defendants strong request, that he should receive probation, the court otherwise gave him every consideration. It imposed the low term of two years for the burglary, stayed sentence on the receiving charge pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and made the sentences on the other two counts run concurrent to the burglary sentence. Defendants total sentence was two years. Defendant was ordered to make restitution to the victims; the court reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Defendant was at all times represented by counsel who provided more than competent representation.

Each of the jurys verdicts is supported by substantial evidence.

Sydel Johnson testified pursuant to a grant of immunity, requested by the prosecutor and not opposed by defendant. The court complied with the provisions of Penal Code section 1324 governing a grant of use immunity to a witness in a criminal trial.

There was no error in the instructions given or refused.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants request for probation. No unauthorized sentences were imposed.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

_________________________

Richman, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Kline, P.J.

_________________________

Haerle, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.