Filed 9/24/18 P. v. Navarro CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN ALBERT NAVARRO, Defendant and Appellant.

A151752 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-160056-8)

Defendant Steven Albert Navarro appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of carrying a concealed firearm, carrying a loaded firearm, and child abuse. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has been apprised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit assault with a semi-automatic firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 182, sub. (a)(1) & 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1);[1] possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 2); carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1); count 3), with an additional allegation that he was an active participant in a criminal street gang (§ 25400, subd. (c)(3)); carrying a loaded firearm (§ 25850, subd. (a); count 4), with an additional allegation that he was an active participant in a criminal street gang (§ 25850, subd. (c)(3)); and child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 5). As to counts 1 through 4, the People alleged the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A).) The jury acquitted defendant of counts 1 and 2, found him guilty of counts 3 and 4 and of the lesser offense of misdemeanor child abuse on count 5 (§ 273a, subd. (b)), and found not true all of the gang allegations.[2]

Before trial, defendant sought review of the personnel records of five employees of the Antioch Police Department and an inspector with the district attorney’s office. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) After reviewing the records in camera and making a record of their contents, the trial court ordered production of information from the personnel file of one of the officers. During trial, the court reviewed the personnel file of another police department employee, made a record of its contents, and found nothing to disclose.

The evidence at trial showed that Danielle Oberman’s former boyfriend, Macklane Becker, gave her a car belonging to defendant in 2014. Becker later asked Oberman to return the car. On May 14, 2015, Oberman saw defendant in another car with a friend, Louis Murray. Defendant looked angry. Oberman drove away quickly, going through two red lights, with defendant and Murray following her in the other car.

Captain Leonard Orman of the Antioch Police Department and Lieutenant Diane Aguinaga were in an unmarked police car. They saw two vehicles traveling extremely fast, very close to each other, going through a red light. It looked the like second vehicle was chasing the first. Orman turned on the lights and sirens. He followed the vehicles, turned a corner, and saw the chase car, “wrecked.” He saw defendant on the driver’s side of the vehicle. Defendant moved down the sidewalk, dropped out of Orman’s line of sight, then reappeared and began to run down the sidewalk. Orman identified himself as a police officer and told defendant to stop. Defendant did not comply, and Orman chased and detained him. When Orman returned to the area where defendant had dropped out of his view briefly, he saw a gun under the front of the vehicle, partially pushed inside a black sock. The gun was a loaded semiautomatic handgun.

Corporal Matthew Koch of the Antioch Police Department searched defendant’s home pursuant to a warrant. In the master bedroom, Koch found two magazines for firearms; one of them was consistent with the firearm that was recovered from the spot where defendant crashed the car, and the other was for a Ruger .45 caliber gun. In the garage, he found a loaded .45 caliber Ruger P90 gun inside a dresser drawer. The dresser was not locked, and the drawer was 28 inches off the ground. The door leading from the house to the garage was unlocked. The gun was registered to defendant.

Defendant lived with his wife, his 16-year-old son, and his wife’s son, M.M., who was three and a half years old. Defendant’s wife told Koch that M.M. had access to the garage and played there on occasion. A child’s bicycle and a red wagon were also in the garage. M.M. was not at the home that day. When Koch later saw him, M.M. appeared to be about 30 or 35 inches tall, and seemed to be tall enough to reach the dresser drawer.

Defendant’s wife testified at trial that she never left M.M. unattended in the garage.

After the jury reached its verdict, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for four years. It ordered him to serve six months in county jail, awarded custody credits, and allowed him to apply for an electronic home detention program so that he could continue to work. It found counts three and four were misdemeanors and subject to section 654. The court imposed fines and fees, and imposed conditions of probation requiring him to obey all laws, submit to searches, not own any deadly or dangerous weapons, surrender any firearms, and attend parenting classes.

Our review of the record has disclosed a clerical error in the fines and fees imposed, which they trial court has not yet corrected. Section 1465.8 requires the imposition of a court operations assessment of $40 per offense. Defendant was convicted of three offenses. The court calculated the court operations assessment to be $140, rather than $120. We shall modify the judgment to correct this computational error.

There are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The judgment modified to impose a court operations assessment of $120.00. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.