Filed 3/5/13 P. v. Phimmasone CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D062561
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD240227)
AI PHIMMASONE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Joan P.
Weber, Judge. Affirmed.
Ai Phimmasone was convicted by a jury of felony evading a police officer (Veh.
Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).)1 He waived jury trial on and admitted allegations he had
served four prior prison terms (Pen. Code § 667.5) and a prior strike conviction (Pen.
Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court denied Phimmasone's motion under People v.
Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and sentenced him to a prison term of
1 All further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified.
nine years, consisting of the upper term of three years doubled for the current offense
under the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), plus three additional
consecutive one-year terms for three of Phimmasone's prior prison terms; the court struck
the one-year enhancement for the fourth prior prison term because it was based on the
prior strike conviction. Phimmasone appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On April 6, 2012, Officer Luth and his partner were driving a marked patrol car
and began following a car driven by Phimmasone. Phimmasone made an unsafe left turn
at a T-intersection and was speeding in violation of section 22350. After Phimmasone
ignored a stop sign in violation of section 22450, subdivision (a), Luth activated his lights
and siren; Phimmasone did not stop but instead accelerated. After making a wide left
turn, Phimmasone lost control of the car and drove into a yard. He drove across the yards
of other houses before crashing into a flatbed trailer. He then fled on foot, with Luth and
his partner in pursuit, and did not heed shouted demands from Luth to stop. Although
Luth lost sight of Phimmasone, other officers, responding to Luth's earlier request for
assistance, set up a perimeter and apprehended Phimmasone.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies as possible, but not
arguable, issues: (1) whether the instructions concerning identification evidence and the
2
evading offense were adequate; (2) whether it was error not to give a unanimity
instruction or a lesser included offense instruction; (3) whether Phimmasone received
ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) whether denial of Phimmasone's motion under
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 was error; (5) whether Phimmasone was
adequately advised of his rights when he waived trial on and admitted the prior prison
terms and prior strike allegations; and (6) whether denial of Phimmasone's Romero
motion was an abuse of discretion.
We granted Phimmasone permission to file a supplemental brief on his own
behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no
reasonably arguable appellate issues, and Phimmasone has been competently represented
by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
3
P. v. Phimmasone CA4/1
Combined Opinion