People v. Lucio CA5

Filed 12/21/23 P. v. Lucio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085435, F085436 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F22900441, v. F22905979)

ISREAL JESSIE LUCIO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Samuel Dalesandro, Judge. Robert L. Hernandez, 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION Isreal Jessie Lucio (appellant) pleaded no contest to vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)).1 He also admitted he suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and two prior auto theft convictions (§ 666.5). The trial court sentenced him to five years four months in state prison. On appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no error and asking this court to review the record and determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues on appeal. Appellant was afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental letter or brief but failed to do so in the time allotted. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We affirm. BACKGROUND In superior court case No. F22900441, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging appellant with vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), receiving a stolen motor vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601, subd. (a)). The information also alleged a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and two prior auto theft convictions (§ 666.5). According to the preliminary hearing transcript, appellant was contacted by law enforcement driving a car that had been reported stolen. The registered owner of the car confirmed it had been stolen and that appellant did not have permission to drive her car. While this case was pending, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint in superior court case No. F22905979, charging appellant with second