Filed 11/7/13 P. v. Galindo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

DAMIAN BUSTOS GALINDO, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 H039721 

 (Santa Clara County 

 Super. Ct. No. B1263296) 

 Defendant Damian Bustos Galindo appeals from a judgment of conviction entered 

after he pleaded no contest to vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, 

subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 666.5) and delaying, resisting, and obstructing a peace officer 

(Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant also admitted allegations that he suffered a 

strike prior within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) 

and 1170.12 as well as a prison prior within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, 

subdivision (b). After denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the prior strike allegation 

pursuant to Penal Code section 1385, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison 

for four years. 

I. Statement of Facts 

 At approximately 9:14 p.m. on November 6, 2012, officers were on routine patrol 

near a house where parolees lived and drug activity occurred. The officers observed a 
truck parked in front of the house. A records check revealed that the truck had been 

reported stolen five days earlier. The officers conducted surveillance until three people, 

including defendant, exited the house and entered the truck. The officers initiated a 

felony stop on the truck and ordered the occupants out of the truck. Defendant exited the 

truck. After he took a few steps, the officer ordered him to stop. Defendant, however, 

ran across the light rail tracks and into oncoming traffic. Officers and a K-9 unit pursued 

him and defendant was eventually apprehended. After conducting a search of his person, 

an officer found marijuana. Since defendant was the driver of the stolen truck and he 

matched the description of the individual who was seen stealing the truck, he was 

arrested. During his interview with the officers at the county jail, defendant stated that he 

ran from them because he was in possession of marijuana and in violation of probation. 

He also stated that he borrowed the truck from a friend. 

II. Discussion 

 Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and 

the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written 

argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant 

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have 

concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal. 

III. Disposition 

 The judgment is affirmed. 
 _____________________________ 

 Mihara, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

______________________________ 

Elia, Acting P. J. 

______________________________ 

Grover, J.