P. v. Renteria CA5

Filed 3/12/13 P. v. Renteria 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F064732 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F11907260) v.

HENRY ELISEO RENTERIA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. D. Tyler Tharpe, Judge.

Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant, Henry Eliseo Renteria, was charged in a criminal complaint filed on December 23, 2011, with felony evasion of a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 1), felony driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 2), felony receipt of a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), count 3), and felony child endangerment (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a), count 4). The complaint also alleged two prior prison term enhancements. On February 7, 2012, appellant entered into a plea agreement wherein he would admit the four counts in the criminal complaint and receive a lid prison term of six years eight months. Appellant executed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form acknowledging the terms of the plea agreement, the consequences of his plea, and his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl.1 Appellant waived his Boykin/Tahl rights in the form. At the hearing, the trial court verified that appellant understood the terms of the plea agreement, the consequences of the plea, and had executed and initialed the change of plea form. The parties stipulated that the police report constituted a factual basis for the plea.2 Appellant pled no contest to all four counts and admitted the two prior prison term enhancements.

1 Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 (Boykin/Tahl). 2 On October 28, 2011, Clovis Police officers saw a vehicle weaving between lanes and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. The officers pursued appellant at high speeds in excess of 70 to 80 miles per hour, running red lights. Officers eventually stopped because appellant was driving recklessly and endangering the public. The officers contacted the registered owner of the vehicle, petitioner’s mother, who reported that her vehicle was missing and appellant had probably taken it. She believed her 16-year-old grandson was with appellant. Appellant did not have permission to take the vehicle. A relative later contacted the police and informed them that appellant had admitted to her that he had been in a high speed chase with officers with his son in the car.