Filed 3/29/17 P. v. Toledo CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

REYNALDO TOLEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067167

(Super.Ct.No. 16CR021367)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. William Jefferson Powell IV, judge. Affirmed.
Elizabeth K. Horowitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant is serving a six-year sentence for stealing his cousin’s car at gunpoint, with a strike prior. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On May 21, 2016, the victim went with defendant, who is his cousin, to defendant’s apartment. Defendant pointed a firearm at the victim and said, “I’m taking your f---ing car.” Defendant walked out of the apartment. Ten minutes later, the victim went to the parking lot and saw that his car was gone.
On July 11, 2016, the People filed an information charging defendant in count 1 with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)) and in count 2 with driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851). The People also alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).)
On August 26, 2016, defendant pled no contest to count 2 and admitted the strike allegation, in exchange for dismissal of count 1.
On October 28, 2016, defendant asked to withdraw his plea. The court denied the request. The court then sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea agreement to the high term of three years, doubled to six years for the strike prior.
This appeal followed. The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Upon defendant’s appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a brief statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court undertake an independent review of the record. We have also afforded defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the entire record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


RAMIREZ
P. J.


We concur:


CODRINGTON
J.


SLOUGH
J.