Filed 4/ 4/14 P. v. Ruiz CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

MIGUEL CASTRO RUIZ

, Defendant and Appellant. H039 635 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS12 0790 )

A jury found d efendant Miguel Castro Ruiz guilty of taking a vehicle without

consent ( Veh. Code , § 10851, subd. (a)); evading a peace officer ( Veh. Code , § 2800.1,

subd. (a)); possession of burglar y tools ( Pen. Code

, § 466); and giving a false name to a
police officer ( Pen. Code

, § 148.9, subd. (a)). 1 The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of ten ye ars in state prison

. Defendant timely appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him in this

court. By letter dated December 3

, 2013, this court notified defendant that his appellate

counsel filed a brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue

, and we informed
defendant of his right to submit argument on his own behalf . Defendant did not res pond
to that letter. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the judgment.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable appellate issues.
( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 44 0

- 44 1.) W e include here “a brief description

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was

convicted, and the punishment imposed .” ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123

- 124.)

II. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDI NGS
The following factual summary is based on the testimony of witnesses at defendant’s jury trial. Shortly after 11:00 p.m. on April 28, 2012, Monterey County Sheriff’s Deputy Jorge Perez noticed a truck with one broken headlight slow down as it
passed the gas station where the deputy wa s conducting a business check

. Deputy Perez

decided to follow the truck in his patrol car

, provided the truck’s license plate number to
a dispatch officer for a registration check, and learned that the tr uck had been reporte d
stolen. Deputy Perez continu ed to follow the truck while waiting for backup. Once
backup arrived, Deputy Perez activated his emergency lights and siren n ear the

intersection of North Main Street and San Juan Grade Road in Salinas

. The driver of the
truck (later identified as defendant) picked up speed and a chase ensued. Deputy Perez

followed defendant and , upon seeing other cars stopped in front of him that could be in
danger if the pursuit continued, employed a “pursuit immobilization techni [ que ],” which
involved Deputy Per ez using his patrol car to hit the truck on the side to make the truck
spin out. The technique made the truck spin, which stalled the engine

. The truck
damaged a “ No Parking” sign during the spin

- out.

Defendant fled on foot and was immobilized through t he use of a Ta s er. Deputy

Perez found a Volk s wagen key and a single black glove on the street next to the driver’s

side door of the truck

. Inside the cab of the truck the deputy found the companion to that
single black glove

, as well as other keys , bolt cutters, and a wig. Many of the keys were “shaved,” meaning they had been filed down to “bypass some of the pins” in a car’s
ignition, which allows someone to start a car without having the proper set of keys.
Deputy Perez testified that the items discov ered were consistent with burglary tools.Deputy Perez spoke with defendant at the scene of the traffic stop after a

responding Salinas police officer gave defendant Miranda 2 warnings in Spanish

. 3
Defendant gave Deputy Perez a false name (Samuel Torres Azevedo) and claimed his

friend let him borrow the truck . However, he could not remember his friend’s name or

address . When asked whether he knew the actual owner of the truck, defendant said he

could not remember.

A couple days later, Deputy Perez in terrogated defendant at the county jail after
advising defendant of his Miranda rights again in Spanish. D efendant admitted both that

h is true name was Miguel Castro Ruiz and that he saw Deputy Perez’s emergency lights
and siren when the deputy attempted to pull him over

. At trial, Martin Oviedo Ortiz, the
registered owner of the stolen truck, testified that he did not know defendant and never
gave him permission to use his truck.
Defendant was charged by amended information with: (count one ) felony

u nlawfully taking a vehicle ( Veh. Code

, § 10851, subd. (a)); (count two ) misdemeanor
evading a peace officer ( Veh. Code

, § 2800.1, subd. (a)); (count three ) misdemeanor
possession of burglar y tools (§ 466) ; and (count four ) misdemeanor giving a false name

to a peace officer (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). As to the sole felony count, the amended

information alleged two prior strike convictions (§ 1170.12, subd. (c) (2)) ; one prior
conviction for taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (§ 666. 5, subd. (a)); four
prior prison terms (§ 667.5

, subd. (b) ) ; and one prior strike conviction, disqualify ing
defendant from receiving a county jail sentence ( § 1170, subd. (h)(3)).
The jury found defendant guilty o n all four counts. The parties agreed to a

bifurcated court trial regarding the special allegations

. In that proceeding, t he court

2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436

. 3 It is unclear from the record whether Deputy Perez, a “department

- certified Spanish speaker,” spoke with defendant in English or Spanish; a later interview at the jail was conducted “in both languages.”admitted into ev idence records from defendant’s previous incarceration (§ 969b) and took

judicial notice of a Monterey County Superior Court ca se file for one of defendant’s prior

convictions. Based on that evidence, the court found true beyond a reasonable doubt all
of the special allegations

. The court received the probation report in March 2013 and set sentencing and a hearing on defendant’ s Romero 4 motion for May 2013. The court also struck one of

defendant’s prior strikes on its own motion

. At the hearing i n May 2 013 , the court denied

defendant’s Romero motion , finding that although defendant’s current offense was less

serious than the remaining prior strike, defendant did not fall “outside the spirit of the three strikes law,” as evidenced by defendant’s violations of parole and probation as well as defendant’s status as a parolee when he committed the most recent offense

. T he court

d enied probation and sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years in state prison

for count one ( Veh. Code, § 10851; § 666.5, subd. (a)), doubled to six years due to the
prior strike

. (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) The court also imposed one consecut ive year for

each of defendant’s four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. ( b ))

, for a total sentence of ten

years.
The court also ordered defendant to pay a $ 3,000 restitutio n fine (§ 1202.4, subd.
(b)(1)) with an additional $3,000 imposed but suspended pending successful completion
of parole (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)) ; $ 594 in victim restitution to the County of Monterey for
damage to the “No Parking” sign ; a $1 6 0 court operations fee (§ 1465.8

, subd. (a)(1)); a $120 court facilities assessment ( Gov. Code

, § 70373

, subd. (a)(1)); and a n $ 8 emer gency medical air transportation penalty ( Gov. Code , § 76000.10, subd. (c)(1))

. Finally, the
court gave defendant 569 days of custody credit (consisting of 285 days actual custody

and 284 days of section 4019 conduct credit s ).

4 People v. Superior Court (Romero ) (1996) 13 Cal .4th 497.We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable issue. However,

we note a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. The trial court’s minute order
correctly imposed an $ 8 emergency medical air transportation penalty based on

d efendant’s two V ehicle C ode violations ( Gov. Code , § 76000.10, subd. (c)(1) [imposing
$4 fine for “ every conviction for a violation of the Vehicle Code ”] ) , but the abstract of
judgment omits the fine. 5 To remedy this discrepancy, w e will direct the clerk of the trial

court to correct the abstract of judgment.

III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the superior c ourt is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the $ 8 emerge ncy medical air transport ation
penalty . ( Gov. Code , § 76000.10, subd. (c)(1).)

____________________________________ Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________ ____________ Bamattre

- Manoukian, Acting P.J.

____________________________ ____________ Mihara , J.

5 Though the emergency medical air transportation penalty is correctly set at $8 on the minute order, the trial court misspoke at the May 2013 hearing when it stated that penalty was only $4.