People v. Wright CA1/5

Filed 5/6/22 P. v. Wright CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A158724 v. JAMES LEE WRIGHT, (Contra Costa County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 05-181301-3)

This is an appeal from a final judgment following a jury trial that convicted defendant James Lee Wright of taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. Defendant has not exercised his right to file a supplemental brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with one count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and one count of receiving a stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). As to both counts, it was alleged that pursuant to Penal Code section 666.5, defendant had multiple prior convictions for driving or taking a vehicle without consent and a prior

1

conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle. The information further alleged that defendant had served three prior prison terms for felony convictions and that the new offenses amounted to probation violations in two other cases. The charges stem from a vehicle theft on May 15, 2018. Chris R. reported his Acura missing from the Warm Springs BART station, where he parked it earlier that day. The next day, while on assignment to a vehicle theft task force, Sergeant Zachary Blume of the Pinole Police Department went to defendant’s address and found Chris R.’s Acura parked across the street. Sergeant Blume had the Acura towed. He also located two surveillance cameras mounted on a neighbor’s house, one of which pointed in the direction where the Acura was parked. Sergeant Blume and another officer reviewed and collected the footage from the cameras that showed defendant arriving in the Acura earlier that day, parking, and walking to his residence. Defendant was arrested and interviewed by Sergeant Blume after the sergeant read defendant his rights and confirmed defendant understood them. The interview was recorded. Defendant admitted taking the Acura so he could make a scheduled court appearance but insisted he did not “intentionally do it to deprive anybody of their car or anything.” Defendant agreed to write Chris R. an apology letter for stealing his car. Defendant wrote the apology letter and read it aloud to Sergeant Blume during the interview. In the letter, defendant stated, “I really do apologize for . . . me stealing your car. It was out of necessity . . . , which does not make it okay, but it still happened.” At trial, Chris R. testified that the day after he reported his car stolen, he was notified by the Pinole Police Department that his Acura was