Filed 9/3/15 P. v. Garcia CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B261125

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. NA099753)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed. 

Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________________
2

A jury convicted Steven Garcia of unlawfully driving a vehicle, with findings that 

he had a prior conviction for unlawfully driving a vehicle and a prior strike conviction. 

(Veh. Code, § 10851; Pen. Code, §§ 666.5; 667, subds. (b)-(j); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) 

The trial court sentenced Garcia to a total aggregate term of eight years in state prison 

consisting of the upper term of four years for the vehicle offense, doubled for the prior 

strike. Appointed counsel on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Garcia has filed a letter brief asserting various claims of 

error. We affirm the judgment. 

FACTS

The Crime

At about 6:00 a.m. one morning, Jose Olivo went outside to start his Toyota truck. 

While the truck was warming up, Olivo walked about 50 feet away to fill up a bottle of 

water. Olivo then “heard the noise of the truck and . . . turned around and [it] was gone.” 

Olivo did not see who was driving his truck; he had not given anyone permission to drive 

it. Olivo’s daughter, Joanna, promptly called police and reported that the truck had been 

stolen. 

Later that morning, one of Olivo’s neighbors, Maria Martinez, saw Garcia driving 

Olivo’s truck. At about 11:30 a.m., Olivo received a telephone call from another 

neighbor who said that he had seen Olivo’s truck. 

Based on the information from his neighbors, Olivo used another car to go look

for his truck. He found his truck parked near 256th Street and Marigold Avenue, and 

parked his car directly behind the truck. At that point, Olivo saw Garcia “getting off” 

the truck, and looking inside the “back of the truck.” Olivo approached Garcia and 

asked, “Is that your truck?” Garcia responded, “No. It has been parked here for hours.” 

Olivo said that he was going to call the police, and Garcia said, “Sure, call them.” 

At about noon, Olivo called his daughter, Joanna, and told her that he had found 

his truck. Joanna drove to 256th Street where she saw the truck, Olivo, and Garcia. 

Maria Martinez also drove to 256th Street where she too saw the truck and saw Olivo and 
3

Garcia. Joanna called the police. Garcia did not leave the scene, but paced back and 

forth and from one side of the street to the other. 

The police arrived. The keys to the truck were not in the truck and were not found 

on Garcia. Olivo and Joanna helped the police to look for the truck keys. Joanna 

eventually found the keys near the curb where Garcia had been pacing. A lawn mower 

and other gardening tools that had been in the back of the truck when it was taken from 

Olivo’s home were missing. 

The Criminal Case

On July 25, 2014, before the preliminary hearing, the trial court granted Garcia’s 

oral request “to represent [him]self.”1 During the court’s inquiry into the request, Garcia 

stated that he had experience with criminal court, explaining that he had presented 

himself in “about 13” prior cases. In August 2014, the People filed an information 

charging Garcia as indicated at the outset of this opinion. 

The case was tried to a jury in mid-October 2014, at which time the prosecution 

presented evidence establishing the facts summarized above. Garcia testified in his own 

defense, denying that he had taken Olivo’s truck. His story was that he just happened to 

be in the area, and had been merely looking at the truck when Olivo arrived at the scene. 

On October 17, 2014, at about 2:45 p.m., the jury retired to begin its deliberations. At 

about 3:50 p.m., the jury advised the trial court that a verdict had been reached. The jury 

found Garcia guilty of the alleged unlawful vehicle driving charge, and also found that he 

suffered a prior conviction for unlawfully driving a vehicle and a prior conviction for 

assault with a deadly weapon. 

On October 31, 2014, the trial court sentenced Garcia as indicated at the outset of 

this opinion. 

Garcia filed a timely notice of appeal. 

 

1 Although not expressly cited during the hearing, we note that the right to selfrepresentation is guaranteed pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.
4

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Garcia on appeal. Appointed counsel filed an 

opening brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, requesting independent review of 

the record on appeal for arguable issues. We then notified Garcia by letter that he could 

submit any claim, argument or issues that he wished our court to review. Garcia filed a 

letter brief which we discuss below. 

The initial one-third or so of Garcia’s letter brief consists of an autobiography of 

sorts describing his involvement with the law over a course of more than 20 years, and 

multiple criminal and civil proceedings. Further, he recounts a number of personal trials 

and tribulations. The thrust of Garcia’s discussion appears to be an assertion that he has 

been victimized on several occasions by police and or lawyers, arising from events that

he contends involved innocent conduct. Garcia’s discussion does not show how his 

current criminal case was infected with error. As such, it does not support reversal of his 

conviction for unlawfully driving a vehicle. 

The remainder of Garcia’s letter brief is labeled as a “Petition and or Application 

for Recall of Sentence,” and cites to Proposition 47, passed on November 4, 2014. We 

do not address Garcia’s petition pursuant to Proposition 47 on his current appeal because 

Proposition 47’s procedures must be initiated in the trial court. 

We have independently reviewed the record on appeal, and find that appointed 

counsel has fulfilled his duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.2

BIGELOW, P. J. 

We concur:

FLIER, J. GRIMES, J.

 

2 During the pendency of this appeal, Garcia filed a self-represented petition for 

habeas corpus relief in this court. We dispose of the habeas petition (B265882) by 

separate order.