People v. Duncan CA3

Filed 12/23/13 P. v. Duncan CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C073688

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F03862)

v.

CHARLES DUNCAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Charles Duncan has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

1

BACKGROUND

On April 14, 2012, Andrew Blanc reported his burgundy, 1991 Honda Accord stolen. On May 31, 2012, at around 7:00 p.m., Officer Michael Severi saw defendant make an unsafe turn while driving a four-door, “reddish maroon Honda.” Officer Severi checked the license plate on the vehicle and learned the license plate belonged to a different vehicle. The officer then followed defendant. Defendant pulled into the driveway of a residence and Officer Severi made contact with him. Officer Severi checked the vehicle’s identification number and learned the car had been reported stolen. Defendant gave Officer Severi a single key, which appeared to be shaved, and the officer attempted to use the key in the driver’s side front door. Officer Severi noticed there was damage to the key hole of the ignition but it was not “punched,” as is frequently seen in a stolen car. The officer then noted that, although the key started the ignition, he could not use the key to unlock the driver’s side door. Officer Severi asked defendant about the shaved key. Defendant said he did not think anything of it because “most Hondas out there have already been stolen.” During this encounter, Amber Grace Kenyon (a codefendant at trial) approached the vehicle from inside the residence. Kenyon told Officer Severi that she bought the car from Wendell Goodman, a man with whom she used to live, for $200 about six weeks earlier. Kenyon said she had no paperwork from the sale and had not yet had time to register the car. Defendant and Kenyon were later charged with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). The People further alleged defendant was twice previously convicted of theft-related offenses (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)) and previously served a term in prison (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).