P. v. Mercado CA4/3

Filed 7/24/13 P. v. Mercado CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047962

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12WF0078)

EZEQUIEL MERCADO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Appellant Ezequiel Mercado was convicted by a jury of violating California Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (reckless driving in evading a police officer). The court sentenced him to two years and eight months (the low term) doubled for the prior serious

felony conviction he had admitted before trial, for a total of five years, four months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed an appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised this court she could find no issues to argue on Appellant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case and the only point counsel could imagine might support an appellate issue: sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf and submitted a letter brief, which we discuss below. We have considered the point raised by counsel, scoured the record – including the transcript of trial testimony – for other possible issues, and examined the arguments submitted by Appellant. We agree with appellate counsel’s implied acknowledgment that the sentencing in the case was not legally objectionable. It was formally correct, and nothing about the low-term sentence, doubled for the serious felony conviction, seems to us to be disproportionate, given the seriousness of the offense. Turning to the merits of the case, we find abundant evidence to support Appellant’s conviction, and find no merit in the issues raised by Appellant in his letter brief. We therefore affirm the judgment. FACTS Appellant drove down Trask Avenue in Garden Grove one night with his brights on. An oncoming police car spotlighted him – allowing the officer to see the driver, a light skinned male wearing a black beanie and brown hooded sweatshirt/jacket. But when the officer tried to stop the vehicle, it sped off. There followed a lengthy, high- speed chase. There is no question the driving satisfied the requirements of Vehicle Code section 2802. It was reckless, dangerous, and life-threatening. The issue at trial was whether it was Appellant doing the driving.