P. v. Salazar CA4/2

Filed 5/29/13 P. v. Salazar CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E056650 v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1103522) OMAR SALAZAR, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Micheal R. Libutti, Judge. Affirmed. Jamie Popper, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 INTRODUCTION On August 4, 2011, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Omar Salazar with four felony counts of child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a), counts 1-4); one felony count of evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 5); and one misdemeanor count of being a habitual traffic offender (Veh. Code, § 14601.3, subd. (a), count 6). On February 16, 2012, defendant pleaded no contest to evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 5); resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 69, added count 7); and a nonstrike assault by means likely to inflict great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1), added count 8). In exchange, the parties agreed to a term of three years in state prison for each count to run concurrent. The other charges were dismissed, as well as defendant’s other cases. On June 18, 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of three years in state prison for each count, and ordered defendant to pay a $240 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), and a $240 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), stayed unless parole is revoked. On July 6, 2012, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from his sentence or other matters after the plea. STATEMENT OF FACTS The parties stipulated to the police reports as a factual basis for defendant’s plea. 2 A police officer turned on his vehicle lights to effectuate a traffic stop on defendant. The officer blocked an exit to the parking lot where his patrol vehicle and defendant’s vehicle were located. Defendant backed up and then sped forward slightly toward the driver’s side of the officer’s vehicle. The officer believed defendant was trying to get around his patrol vehicle. Defendant then exited the parking lot onto a street at a high rate of speed. There was a three-to-four minute pursuit. Another officer discovered defendant’s vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. Defendant’s wife was driving and defendant’s children were in the backseat of the vehicle. Defendant was not in the vehicle. Defendant’s wife gave the officer defendant’s cell phone number. The officer called the number and defendant answered. Defendant told the officer that he failed to stop for police because he knew he was wanted on a warrant. Defendant refused to return to the scene, however, he was subsequently arrested. 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 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. 3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS McKINSTER J. We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. KING J. 4