People v. Quinonez CA4/3

Filed 1/4/21 P. v. Quinonez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058711 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19NF1555) v. OPINION EDWIN ALEXANDER QUINONEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Megan Wagner, Judge. Affirmed. Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Defendant Edwin Alexander Quinonez was charged with two felonies: one count of violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), and one count of violating Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a). These charges were filed in the alternative and the jury was instructed to that effect via CALCRIM No. 3516. Pursuant to Proposition 47, “a violation of [Vehicle Code] section 10851 must be punished as a misdemeanor theft offense if the vehicle is worth $950 or less.” (People v. Bullard (2020) 9 Cal.5th 94, 110.) Penal Code section 496d contains no such value restriction. The jury acquitted defendant of count 1 (the Vehicle Code section 10851 charge) but convicted him of count 2 (the Penal Code section 496d violation). The trial court thereafter sentenced him to 16 months in the county jail to be followed by two years eight months of mandatory supervision. Quinonez appeals from that judgment. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. In conducting his analysis of potential appellate issues, appointed counsel informed us in his declaration that he had reviewed the entire record and consulted with staff counsel at Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. While not arguing against defendant, counsel set forth the facts of the case and advised us he was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf; he has not done so.