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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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