People v. Rosel CA4/3
Filed 3/12/26 P. v. Rosel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G065289
v. (Super. Ct. No. 24CF0101)
MAURILIO IVAN ROSEL, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Maurilio Ivan Rosel, Jr., pleaded guilty to several violations of the Penal and Vehicle Code and was sentenced to a prison term of two years eight months. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, Rosel’s appellate counsel suggests we consider whether the trial court properly denied Rosel’s motion to suppress. After an examination of the entire record and appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, we find no reasonably arguable issue. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed. FACTS On January 8, 2024, City of Orange Police Department Officer Nykolo Gonzalez noticed a vehicle driven by Rosel with a dark window tint he believed was in violation of Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a)(1). After Rosel saw Gonzalez, Rosel “open[ed] his eyes really wide” and “open[ed] his hands to a 10:00 and 2:00 position” on the steering wheel. Gonzalez followed Rosel to make a traffic stop and activated his overhead emergency lights, but Rosel continued to drive and increased his speed. Gonzalez then turned on his siren. Instead of stopping, Rosel made a right turn onto a cross street while exceeding the 40 miles per hour speed limit. Rosel approached another intersection, increased his speed, crossed over double yellow lines, and drove into oncoming traffic for a short period of time. He then turned left at an intersection into a residential neighborhood, almost colliding with another vehicle. Gonzalez estimated Rosel was driving “in excess of 80 miles per hour” when he made the left turn.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)