Filed 11/26/18 P. v. Conner CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHNATHON LEE CONNER, Defendant and Appellant. |
A153891
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-709388-1)
|
Defendant Johnathon Lee Conner appeals his five-year prison sentence after pleading no contest to eight felony offenses. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, without drawing our attention to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel also informed Conner of his right to file a supplemental brief, but no such brief was filed. We have reviewed the record, find no issues that require briefing, and therefore affirm.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2017, around 3:50 pm, a resident of the Overlook Apartments, located at 200 Bicentennial Way in Santa Rosa, California, called 9-1-1 to report that looters were taking property out of one of the burned-out buildings in the complex. The resident’s husband took a cellphone video of the incident that captured Conner running out of the burned-out building, carrying a large flat-screen television in his arms, then throwing it into the back of a pickup truck. Conner’s codefendant told police that Conner had made two trips into the burned-out building, each time carrying out items. The witnesses provided police with a description of the truck and its license plate number.
As the Santa Rosa Police were responding to the looting report at the apartment complex, an officer in a patrol car spotted a vehicle matching the 9-1-1 description making a sudden turn over the center median, then speeding away in the opposite direction. The truck, driven by Conner, made several evasive maneuvers, running through red lights and speeding through the traffic. The police terminated the pursuit at that point because the chase was becoming unsafe.
A short time later, Santa Rosa police received a report that two individuals had fled from a vehicle and were running in and out of residential yards. The police subsequently detained two individuals matching the eyewitness’ description and placed them under arrest. The arresting officer asked Conner for identification; he provided the officer with the name Sean Kranyack. Conner was taken into custody and booked under that name.
The following day, Santa Rosa police were contacted by Sean Kranyack, a resident of Monterey County, who had been alerted to a television news report that someone with his name had been arrested the previous evening. Kranyack told police his wallet containing several credit cards, his California driver’s license, and medical cards had been stolen three or four weeks prior to the reported theft. All of these items were located on Conner’s person and booked into evidence.
The abandoned truck was subsequently located. The truck’s license plate had been reported stolen from a vehicle in Rohnert Park. The truck had been stolen from a farm in Monterey County. The property in the truck was inventoried by police, and included the items taken from the apartment complex: the flat-screen television, an X-box console, several video games, a laptop computer, virtual reality glasses, a wireless speaker, and a wooden box containing the ashes of the family’s dog.
II. CHARGES, PLEA, AND APPEAL
On November 21, 2017, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed an information in case no. SCR-709388-1. The information charged Johnathon Lee Conner with eight felony counts and one misdemeanor count: count 1, Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a)—driving or taking a vehicle without consent; count 2, Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a)—receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle; count 3, Penal Code section 463, subdivision (b)—grand theft of personal property during an emergency, fire, or disaster; count 4, Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a)—receiving stolen property with a value exceeding $950 (a flat screen television, jewelry, laptop computer, electronic equipment, ashes of a family pet); count 5, Vehicle Code section 2800.2—fleeing a pursuing peace officer while driving recklessly; count 6, Penal Code section 529, subdivision (a)(3)—false personation; count 7, Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a)—identity theft; count 8, Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a)(1)—conspiracy to drive a stolen vehicle and commit looting of a private residence; count 9, Penal Code section 466—misdemeanor possession of burglary tools.
The information also alleged Conner had served a term in prison, and he had not stayed free of felony and prison custody for a five-year period, pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On February 8, 2018, Conner agreed to an open plea of no contest to all counts after the trial court gave him an indicated sentence of five years in prison. He admitted the prison prior.
On March 13, 2018, the court denied probation, then sentenced Conner to five years in prison as follows: count 1—two years, the midterm; count 2—three years to run concurrent to count 1, stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654; count 3—eight months, one-third the midterm; count 4—three years, stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654; count 5—eight months, one-third the midterm; count 6—eight months, one-third the midterm; count 7—three years to run concurrent to counts 1 and 2; count 8—three years, upper term, stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, plus one year for the prison prior. Conner was awarded custody credits; directed to pay fees for restitution, court security, and public defender representation; and ordered not to possess weapons, ammunition and related devices, not to have contact with his codefendant, and to stay away from the area where the offenses were committed. This timely appeal from the sentence followed.
III. DISCUSSION
When a defendant files a notice of appeal following entry of a plea, our jurisdiction is limited. We may consider the propriety of the defendant’s sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect its validity. A challenge based on the validity of the plea or admission, or any other grounds for appeal, requires that the trial court grant a request for a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1104.) There was no request for a certificate of probable cause in this case. Conner’s sentence, as imposed, was consistent with the terms of the indicated sentence that led him to plead no contest to all counts. Nothing about the sentence, as imposed, was improper. The presentence custody credits and the fees imposed were properly calculated. And the abstract of judgment accurately reflects the sentence imposed.
IV. DISPOSITION
We find no issues based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that raise arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
_________________________
Streeter, Acting P.J.
We concur:
_________________________
Tucher, J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
