People v. Espino CA1/1

Filed 12/20/21 P. v. Espino CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

A160602 THE PEOPLE, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. Nos. SC051474A, Plaintiff and Respondent, SF381780A) v. ORDER MODIFYING JORGE ESPINO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 16, 2021, be modified as follows: 1. On page 3, lines 1 and 3 of footnote 3, replace the name “Esposito’s” to “Espino’s.” 2. On page 6, at the beginning of line 11, replace the name “Espinoza” to “Espino.” There is no change in judgment.

Date: __________________ _____________________________ P.J.

Filed 12/16/21 P. v. Espino CA1/1 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160602

v. (San Mateo County JORGE ESPINO, Super. Ct. Nos. SC051474A, SF381780A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jorge Espino appeals from the trial court’s sentencing order that imposed a four-year jail term after he pled no contest to attempted grand theft and multiple counts of forgery, plus an eight-month consecutive term based on his violation of probation from a prior case. Espino’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the consecutive term because Espino challenged whether he was the defendant in the earlier matter. We disagree. The record makes clear that the trial court imposed a consecutive term because Espino took the stand and perjured himself at his probation violation hearing. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2002, Espino was charged by felony complaint with commercial burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 460, subd. (b)), forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), and petty