People v. Blair CA5
Filed 6/14/21 P. v. Blair CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, F081269 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Madera Super. Ct. v. No. MCR061614)
WAYNE EUGENE BLAIR, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Dale J. Blea, James LaPorte, and Michael J. Jurkovich, Judges.† Paul Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Hill, P.J., Levy, J. and Detjen, J. † Judge Blea presided over the bail review hearing and probation report and judgment hearing; Judge LaPorte presided over the probation report and review hearing; and Judge Jurkovich presided over the sentencing hearing.
INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Wayne Eugene Blair pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property and was sentenced to three years in prison. On appeal, his appellate counsel has filed a brief that summarizes the facts with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We affirm. FACTS1 Around 1:45 p.m. on January 6, 2019, Deputy King of the Madera County Sheriff’s Department responded to a dispatch about a theft at a winery on Avenue 16; he met with Steve Schafer. Mr. Schafer stated that a break in had occurred on the property, but he did not know when it occurred or whether any items were stolen. Mr. Schafer said he would contact someone who was more knowledgeable about what was on the property and forward the surveillance video to King. On the following day, Mr. Schafer informed Deputy King that two Kawasaki Mules (open cab utility vehicles) were stolen, and the theft occurred between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on January 6. King received and reviewed the surveillance video, and it showed a black Dodge Durango towing a red dual-axle flatbed trailer; the vehicle’s license plate number was visible on the video. King sent out a dispatch with the vehicle’s description. Within 20 minutes of the dispatch, deputies conducted a traffic stop of a Dodge Durango that matched the description and license plate. Deputy Stritzel went to defendant’s house and found a red dual-axle flatbed trailer parked in the driveway. Deputy King also went to defendant’s house, confirmed the trailer matched the one on the video, and observed a covered object on the trailer that appeared to have wheels and was shaped like an ATV.
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)