People v. Dimas CA2/2

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Dimas CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B340107

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA131983) v.

HOGER DIMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Defendant and appellant Hoger Dimas (defendant) appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), as charged in the information. After his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues, we notified defendant on December 9, 2024, of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. Following the procedure set forth in Wende, we have independently reviewed the entire record for

arguable issues. As we have found no such issues, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In January 2023, defendant was charged with driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a). On August 6, 2024, a jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on two years felony probation. Conditions included serving 210 days in county jail with 32 days presentence custody credit. Defendant was ordered to pay fines and fees in the amount of $371, restitution, and to abide by the terms of probation. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment. Prior to defendant’s jury trial, several motions were filed on his behalf. We have reviewed the motions, including a “Pitchess motion”1 for discovery of police officer Jesus Carillo’s confidential personnel records. The motion was granted as to evidence of dishonesty only. After an in camera review of the officer’s file, the trial court denied discovery. At trial the prosecution’s first witness was Officer Carrillo. He testified that late at night on May 22, 2021, he observed a Chevy Cruze automobile that had been reported stolen. He followed the car as it sped up to 60 miles per hour. After the Cruze stopped at a dead end, the driver got out. Officer Carrillo illuminated the scene with his spotlight and called, “Police. Stop.” The driver looked straight at the officer before he ran away. Officer Carrillo was able to describe the man to dispatch, and he later identified defendant in court as the driver. Officer Carrillo radioed for assistance and described defendant