People v. Hone CA3

Filed 11/9/21 P. v. Hone CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092705

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE018975)

v.

DEVIN MYLES HONE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Devin Myles Hone filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm. However, we shall direct the clerk to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. BACKGROUND1 In October 2019, the victim left his truck running outside his daughter’s house in Sacramento when defendant hopped in the truck and drove off. The victim followed

1 We recount the facts based on the preliminary hearing transcript, which the parties stipulated to as the factual basis for defendant’s plea.

1

defendant in another vehicle and confronted him when defendant stopped the truck at an intersection. Defendant fled from the truck and ran to a nearby shopping center, where he was later apprehended and identified by the victim and another witness. He initially gave police a false name, but later admitted his true identity. Defendant was initially charged with taking or driving a vehicle worth more than $950 without the owner’s consent, with a prior strike conviction, falsely representing and identifying himself to a police officer for purposes of evasion, and unlawfully driving a motor vehicle when driving privileges were suspended or revoked. Following a preliminary hearing in December 2019, defendant was held to answer only on the false identification charge. Nevertheless, the prosecutor charged defendant in superior court with receipt of a stolen vehicle worth more than $950 and falsely identifying himself to a police officer for purposes of evasion. In January 2020, the prosecutor moved to dismiss and refile the case against defendant, stipulating to a “first bite” pursuant to Penal Code2 section 1387.2. The People then filed a second felony complaint charging defendant with taking or driving a vehicle valued at more than $950 without the owner’s consent and receipt of a stolen vehicle worth more than $950. A strike prior was also alleged. At a second preliminary hearing on January 28, 2020, the court held defendant to answer on both counts. Defendant did not waive time, and trial was set for March 18, 2020, with the 60th day being March 30, 2020. On March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in response to the global outbreak of COVID-19. On March 17, 2020, prior to the date set for trial, the Chief Justice of California, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, in her capacity as chair