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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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