People v. Speck CA3

Filed 12/20/21 P. v. Speck CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094265

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. P19CRF0512, P20CRF0522) v.

RICHARD WALTER SPECK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Richard Walter Speck appeals from an order denying defendant’s postjudgment request to modify a split sentence. Defendant’s appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to independently review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. Although properly advised of his right to file a supplemental brief, defendant did not file one. We therefore dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

1

BACKGROUND In case No. P19CRF0512, deputies stopped defendant while he was driving a vehicle with no front license plate and a rear plate that had been reported stolen. The owner of a tow yard had previously reported chains had been cut off the gate and a vehicle was missing from the tow yard. Upon searching the vehicle, deputies found bolt cutters and tools to remove a license plate in the trunk. A jury found defendant guilty of driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and receiving a known stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d),1 and as to both counts found true the allegation the vehicle was worth more than $950. The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three years on the charge of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle, to be served as a split sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)), and the upper term of three years on receiving a known stolen vehicle, stayed under section 654, and imposed various fines and fees. The court ordered the sentence split as a two year commitment in “county prison,” with credit for 336 days, and one year on mandatory community supervision. In case No. P20CRF0522, defendant damaged a catalytic converter belonging to another person and pleaded no contest to felony vandalism. (§ 594.) In accordance with the plea, the trial court sentenced him to an eight-month term (one-third the midterm), consecutive to the mandatory community supervision in case No. P19CRF0512. Subsequently, the parties learned the custodial sentences had been transposed; as a result of this error, defendant was released from county prison after serving one year in custody and placed on two years of mandatory community supervision.