People v. Dunn CA3

Filed 11/17/23 P. v. Dunn CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098585

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF23-00373, v. CRF23-00530)

MARK ALLEN DUNN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Mark Allen Dunn asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record and will correct a minor error in the fines imposed, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) This appeal involves two cases. In case No. CRF23-00373, the prosecution charged defendant with one count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Defendant then failed to appear in court for that case, and the prosecution initiated case No. CRF23-00530, charging defendant with one count of failure to appear while on bail. (Pen. Code, § 1320.5; statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) The prosecution also alleged defendant was released from custody on bail at the time of the offense. (§ 12022.1.) Defendant resolved both cases with a plea agreement in which he pleaded no contest to both counts for a maximum combined sentence of two years in local custody. The prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining allegation. The parties agreed the factual basis could be drawn from the pretrial release report and the records within the court’s files. According to the report, a sheriff’s deputy stopped defendant after seeing him driving a car that was reported as stolen. Defendant said he had purchased the vehicle from the victim but was warned the victim could be mentally ill and might report the vehicle as stolen. At the sentencing hearing, defendant asked the trial court to grant probation. Considering defendant’s criminal history, which included misdemeanor and felony convictions and multiple failures to appear, the court denied defendant’s request. The trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months for the driving a vehicle without consent conviction in CRF23-00373, plus a consecutive sentence of eight months for the failure to appear conviction in CRF23-00530, for an aggregate total of two years in local prison. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $40 court security