People v. Sevillamull CA6

Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Sevillamull CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H050497 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2114194)

v.

JOSIAH SEVILLAMULL,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Josiah Sevillamull pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1))1 and admitted allegations that he was released on his own recognizance at the time of the offense (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)) and that he had suffered a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison, which was deemed satisfied based on custody credits. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no response from defendant.

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

Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly) at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background In October 2021, around 3:00 a.m., San Jose police responded to a report of an active burglary at an elementary school. A security guard at the school saw two males inside a classroom taking items. The security guard reported to the arriving police officer that the males had walked towards the rear of the school. The guard believed the two males were under 18 years old. The guard reported that the males were wearing black face masks, black “[h]oodie[s],” and backpacks. According to an initial call report, the backpacks were described as black and red. Officers did not find the males inside the school but located iPads on the ground on the side of the school. Another responding police officer parked near an unoccupied Hyundai that was behind the school. Two of the Hyundai’s windows were open. In addition, the back window, which appeared to be broken, had a black cloth over it. The seats were reclined back, and there was an “older generation” iPhone in the middle of the console. The engine was cool to the touch and had dew on it. The police called the registered owner of the vehicle. The registered owner, a father, indicated that his son had possession of the vehicle. The father also indicated that his son had an older model iPhone. The police then called the son, who was not entirely forthcoming in his responses. The son stated that the car had been stolen earlier that night. The son claimed that he did not think he could report it stolen due to the late hour and that he instead drove around San Jose for a few hours looking for the car. The officer thought it was odd because San Jose was a large city and the probability of finding the car would have been “slim to none.” The son indicated that he had subsequently gone to his home in east San Jose.