People v. Martinez CA3

Filed 3/20/15 P. v. Martinez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076468

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F5925)

v.

MICHAEL SHANE MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Shane Martinez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are 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.) Defendant was charged with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)—count 1) and possession of injecting/smoking device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1—count 2), and was alleged to have three prior prison terms within the

1

meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court bifurcated the trial on the prior prison enhancements at defendant’s request. Prior to trial, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of an injecting/smoking device. Accordingly, the court granted defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of the methamphetamine pipe and marijuana found in the vehicle as well as defendant’s plea to count 2. Defendant also moved in limine to preclude admission of “evidence of his poverty,” relying on People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926 (Wilson).1 The trial court denied this motion, finding that the evidence of defendant’s homelessness was not being offered solely to prove motive but “may be relevant to prove other factors involved in the case.”2 The evidence adduced at trial was that the victim left his car in the parking lot at his place of employment before his shift began at 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 2013. The car, a green 1993 Ford Escort, was “pretty beat up,” and the passenger side window had been broken out some months earlier. The victim left the car unlocked and took his keys with him. Some hours later, at about 1:00 a.m., the victim noticed his car was missing from the parking lot. He reported the theft to the police, who issued a “be-on-the-lookout” broadcast for the victim’s car. At about 4:00 a.m., an officer was in a Walmart parking lot and spotted the victim’s car. A few minutes later, the officer saw defendant get in the