P. v. Gunkel

Filed 2/7/07  P. v. Gunkel CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County.  Hurl W. Johnson, Judge.

            Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, John G. McLean, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            A jury found Rexford Anthony Gunkel guilty as charged with two offenses:  in count I with receiving a stolen vehicle, a felony (Pen. Code, §  496d),^[1] and in count II with falsely identifying himself to a peace officer, a misdemeanor (§  148.9.) 

            With respect to count I, Gunkel then admitted a prior conviction for vehicle theft (Veh. Code, §  10851) for purposes of section 666.5 (increasing the sentencing range for the present offense), and he admitted having served two prior prison terms (§  667.5, subd. (b)).  Two other prior vehicle theft conviction allegations, and one other prior prison term allegation, were dismissed.

            The trial court sentenced Gunkel to the middle term of three years for count I, and imposed a single one-year prior prison term enhancement (it struck the second one), for a total of four years.  It did not pronounce sentence for count II.  (The court had previously indicated it would impose no more than a concurrent six-month jail term for that offense; the probation officer recommended Gunkel be sentenced to time served.)

            On appeal, Gunkel challenges the court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence (§  1538.5).  He also maintains the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction for count II.  We agree with the second claim only.

DISCUSSION

The Suppression Motion

            Shortly after midnight on February 5, 2005, several officers from the Ceres Police Department went to a house on Blaker Road to serve an arrest warrant on someone they suspected of â€