People v. Privett CA3

Filed 3/17/23 P. v. Privett CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096724

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE018233)

v.

EUGENE GEORGE PRIVETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Eugene George Privett has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has disclosed the trial court’s erroneous imposition of a fee, as well as certain errors in the abstract of judgment. We modify the judgment to strike this fee and will direct the trial court to amend and correct the abstract of judgment. We affirm the judgment as modified.

1

BACKGROUND An information charged defendant with driving or taking a vehicle without consent with a prior (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count one) and buying/receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count two).1 The complaint further alleged defendant had suffered a prior strike. (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b).) Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the enhancement allegations. Defendant appeared out of custody at the pretrial conference, at which time the trial court denied defendant’s request to resolve the case by plea while remaining out of custody pending sentencing. Defendant declined to change his plea, and the court denied defendant’s request to delay the trial to allow him to hire private counsel. The court warned defendant that any failure to appear for trial would be considered a voluntary absence. Defendant was present for jury selection, but failed to appear for the remainder of his trial. The trial court determined defendant was voluntarily absent, and the trial proceeded without him. The jury was instructed not to consider defendant’s absence for any reason. At trial, the People presented evidence that the victim, Gregory S., parked his Ford F-250 truck in a commercial parking lot on May 1, 2019. When he returned to pick the truck up several days later, it was gone. Gregory S. confirmed the truck had not been towed by a local business. The truck had been locked, with the windows closed, but Gregory S. kept a magnetic hide-a-key under the bed rail. No one had permission to take the truck, which had its issued license plates attached. When the truck was recovered, the license plates had been changed, as had the wheels and tires. The truck had also been painted and was extensively damaged.