Filed 9/12/17 P. v. Crenshaw 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
ALLEN KEITH CRENSHAW,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
E067857
(Super.Ct.No. FSB20129)
OPINION
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard C. Power, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
In 1999, a jury found defendant and appellant Allen Keith Crenshaw guilty of kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking (Pen. Code, § 209.5, subd. (a); count 1)[1] with the personal use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 3). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had sustained two prior serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). After the trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior strike convictions, defendant was sentenced to a total determinate term of 10 years, plus an indeterminate term of 50 years to life.
In November 2016, defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence, arguing the sentence was unauthorized because his conviction on count 3 for unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), is a lesser included offense to count 1, kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 is not a lesser included offense to carjacking pursuant to People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
DISCUSSION[2]
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issue, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
[1] All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
[2] The details of defendant’s criminal conduct are not included in the record on appeal and are not relevant to the limited issue raised in this appeal.
