P. v. Mayo CA4/2 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 5/30/13 P. v. Mayo 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                       E057858
    v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. FBA1200727)
    HOWARD MAYO,                                                             OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Victor R. Stull,
    Judge. Affirmed.
    Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
    Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    INTRODUCTION
    1
    On December 17, 2012, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant
    Howard Mayo with petty theft having suffered three prior convictions in violation of
    Penal Code sections 666, subdivision (a), and 484, subdivision (a) (count 1), and second
    degree commercial burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459 (count 2). The
    complaint also alleged four prison priors under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
    On December 26, 2012, defendant pled guilty to count 2, second degree
    commercial burglary. The plea agreement provided that defendant would waive a
    probation report, be immediately sentenced, and receive a stipulated term of three years
    in county prison, to run concurrent with any other pending matters. The balance of the
    complaint was to be dismissed, including the four prison priors.
    Immediately after defendant’s plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to county
    prison for the term of three years, to run concurrent with any other sentence. The trial
    court also dismissed count 1 and the four priors were stricken. The trial court gave
    defendant credit for 14 days of actual custody plus 14 days of section 4019 conduct
    credits, for a total of 28 days. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine
    of $264 and a revocation fine of $264, which was stayed. The trial court also ordered
    defendant to pay a court operations assessment fee of $70.
    Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 10, 2013. The trial court
    granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    2
    Since defendant pled guilty, the statement of facts is taken from the Barstow
    Police Department’s reports.
    On December 13, 2012, officers of the Barstow Police Department were conducting
    a search for a vehicle that had been reported stolen in the area of the 1300 block of Barstow
    Road. Officers entered the alleyway behind 1391 Barstow Road. They observed a Black
    male, later identified as defendant, wearing a bulging jean jacket, walking out from the
    back of some commercial establishments. When defendant looked in the direction of the
    officers, he immediately turned and ran southbound. Officers gave chase, caught up with
    defendant, and ordered him to stop. When Officer Cardenas was approaching defendant,
    the officer saw defendant attempting to hide several items. These items consisted of
    dominoes, DVD movies, coffee, candy, and dish soap. Following a brief conversation,
    defendant admitted that he had taken the items from a nearby dollar store.
    Officers contacted the manager of the dollar store. She identified defendant as
    someone who regularly caused problems inside the store. The manager also identified the
    stolen items as being from the store. The total value of the items was $52.78. Defendant
    admitted to Officer Cardenas that he intended to steal the items when he entered the store.
    ANALYSIS
    After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
    represent him. 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
    3
    the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to
    undertake a review of the entire record.
    We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
    has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , we
    have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    McKINSTER
    P. J.
    We concur:
    RAMIREZ
    P. J.
    CODRINGTON
    J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E057858

Filed Date: 5/30/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021