California Court of Appeal Jul 17, 2014 No. E059724Unpublished
Filed 7/17/14 P. v. Masiel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E059724
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1102764)
JAMES CRAIG MASIEL, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas Glasser, Judge.
(Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Richard Glen Boire, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant James Craig Masiel appeals after he was convicted
of drug possession and resisting arrest offenses. Defendant was sentenced to 10 years
8 months in prison. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Deputy James King of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department conducted a
traffic stop on a vehicle that defendant was driving. Defendant pulled into a driveway,
§ 11377, subd. (a), count 2), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 69, count 3). A fourth
count, for possession of ammunition by a felon, was charged, but later dismissed. The
information also alleged that defendant had suffered four prior prison terms, and two
prior strike convictions.
At one point, defendant entered a guilty plea and admitted the prison term priors,
and one strike prior, in exchange for a sentence capped at 12 years 8 months. He later
withdrew that plea and went to trial.
A jury found defendant guilty of all three counts. Defendant waived trial on the
priors, and admitted four prior prison terms and two strike priors. The court declined
defendant’s invitation to exercise its discretion to dismiss one of the strike priors.
(People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) The court sentenced
defendant to a term of four years (two years, doubled) on count 1, with a consecutive
term of one year four months (eight months, doubled) on count 2, and another
consecutive term of one year four months (eight months, doubled) on count 3. The court
imposed a one-year enhancement for each of defendant’s four prison term prior offenses,
for a total aggregate term of 10 years 8 months.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
4
ANALYSIS
This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has now
filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a brief
summary of the facts and a statement of the case. Counsel has asked this court to review
the record independently to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
Defendant has been advised that he has the right to file a personal supplemental
brief, which he has not done.
Appointed counsel has suggested some potentially arguable issues—whether
the trial court gave sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive terms (the court found
an aggravating circumstance), whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining
to dismiss one or both of defendant’s strike priors (the priors were old, but defendant
had not led a blameless life so as to put himself outside the three strikes recidivism
scheme), whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make certain evidentiary
objections—but our examination of the record has satisfied us that no arguable issues are
presented.
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
KING J.
CODRINGTON J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no arguable issues.
Issues
Whether the trial court provided sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss prior strike convictions.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to make certain evidentiary objections.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“our examination of the record has satisfied us that no arguable issues are presented.”