P. v. Alfaro

Filed 2/8/07  P. v. Alfaro CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

            Defendant Miguel Alfaro appeals a judgment entered after he entered a plea of no contest to making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422)[1] and first degree burglary (§  460, subd. (a)).  On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction.  We affirm.

I.  BACKGROUND

            Defendant was charged by amended information in count one with stalking (§  646.9, subd. (a)); in counts two and five with making criminal threats (§  422); in count three with first degree burglary (§  460, subd. (a)); in count four with theft of a firearm (§  487, subd. (d)); in count six with vandalism (§  594, subd. (b)(1)); in count seven with possessing a switchblade knife in a motor vehicle (§  653k); and in counts eight, nine, ten, and eleven with violating a court order (§  166, subd. (c)(1)).[2]  The information included various prior conviction allegations pursuant to sections 667, subdivision (a), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1), and 1203, subdivision (e)(4). 

            Defendant initially pled not guilty to all charges and denied the prior conviction allegations.  He later changed his plea to no contest on counts two and three, and all remaining counts were dismissed.  He waived a jury trial on the issue of the prior conviction allegations, and the allegations were tried by the court.  The court found the prosecution had met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had been convicted of a serious felony.

            Defendant received a prison sentence of two years for count three, doubled pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1); a consecutive eight-month term on count two, doubled pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1); and a consecutive five-year term pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a), for a total term of 10 years and four months.  This timely appeal ensued.

II.  DISCUSSION

            Defendant contends the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that his 1983 conviction was of a serious felony.   At the trial of the prior conviction allegations, the trial court considered materials submitted pursuant to section 969b related to a 1983 conviction of a violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) in San Francisco Superior Court case number 111584.  The evidence included the abstract of judgment, indicating the conviction was for â€