Filed 8/7/17 P. v. Mortensen CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN LEE MORTENSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083910

(Super. Ct. No. CM044227)



Appointed counsel for defendant Steven Lee Mortensen has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2016, sheriff’s deputies attempting to execute an arrest warrant for defendant spotted him driving a distinctive car. Deputy Michael Worch activated his overhead lights, including a solid, forward-facing red light, and tried to pull over defendant as he pulled out of a parking lot. Defendant accelerated and crossed the double yellow center line despite oncoming traffic. Worch activated his siren and gave chase. Defendant exceeded the posted speed limit. Additional deputies joined the pursuit, activating their lights and sirens, but defendant did not yield and again crossed the double yellow center line, ran a stop sign, and continued to accelerate. When defendant reached a dead-end road in a residential area, he got out of the car and fled on foot. Deputy Chris Dineen recognized defendant from multiple prior contacts and a flyer bearing defendant’s face.
Deputy Worch also recognized defendant and gave chase on foot. Defendant refused Worch’s orders to stop and get on the ground, and eventually jumped off an embankment and out of Worch’s sight.
On July 15, 2016, a jury found defendant guilty of fleeing a pursuing peace officer while driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (Veh. Code § 2800.2; count 1) and misdemeanor resisting or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). Defendant subsequently admitted two prison prior allegations. (Id., § 667.5, subd. (b).)
On October 13, 2016, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years on count 1, plus two consecutive one-year terms for the prison priors, for an aggregate term of five years in state prison.
On December 15, 2016, defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram vobis in the trial court raising numerous issues, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to present evidence, investigate the case, and assert an affirmative defense; failure of the police to prepare a police report; failure of the prosecution to provide evidence; witness testimony in violation of in limine order; insufficient evidence to prove identity; violation of defendant’s right to equal protection; and error by the prosecution in eliciting false testimony.
On December 21, 2016, the trial court denied defendant’s petition.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Murray, Acting P. J.




/s/
Hoch, J.