People v. Jimenez CA5

Filed 3/15/23 P. v. Jimenez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F084237 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21908086) v.

OSCAR JOE JIMENEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Heather Mardel Jones, Judge. Nancy Wechsler, 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 Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

Appointed counsel for defendant Oscar Joe Jimenez asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On December 30, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with evading a police officer in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license after a drunk driving conviction (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); count 2). The information further alleged defendant committed count 1 while out on bail (Pen. Code, § 12022.1),1 and he had suffered a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). The trial court dismissed count 2 on the prosecution’s motion. On March 8, 2022, the jury convicted defendant of count 1. In a bifurcated proceeding on the previous day, the court found the prior strike allegation true. At the sentencing hearing on April 6, 2022, the trial court dismissed the on-bail enhancement. The court denied defendant’s request to reduce count 1 to a misdemeanor and denied his Romero2 motion to strike the prior strike conviction pursuant to section 1385. The court imposed the midterm of four years on count 1 (two years doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law). The court granted credits and imposed various fines and fees.