P. v. Mestre CA2/6

Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Mestre CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B242243 (Super. Ct. No. BA392953) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

VINCENT I. MESTRE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Vincent I. Mestre appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted that he suffered a prior strike conviction and served a prior prison. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to state prison for seven years. Jennifer E., the victim, lived with her five children. Appellant lived with her for about a year. Jennifer owned a black Chevy Tahoe that appellant often used, with her consent. On August 24, 2011, appellant drove Jennifer and three of her children home in her Tahoe. Appellant got out of the Tahoe first. As Jennifer stepped from the Tahoe, appellant slammed its door on her face and arms.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

On September 28, 2011, appellant was driving Jennifer’s Tahoe. She did not give him permission to drive it that day. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from appellant. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.