1 Filed 11/20/13 P. v. Stephens CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
JOSEPH PAUL ST EPHENS, JR., Defendant and Appellant. C073205 (Super. Ct. Nos. CM035948 & CM036383)

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). In case No. CM035948, a felo ny complaint filed in Marc h 2012 charged defendant Joseph Paul Stephens, Jr., with unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (count 1; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor evading a law enforcement officer (count 2; Veh. Code, § 2800.1). In case No. CM036383, a felo ny complaint filed in April 2012 charged defendant with assaulting a peace officer with a deadly weapon (count 1; Pen. Code, 1 § 245, subd.

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.2 (c)), recklessly evading a law enforcement officer (count 2; Veh. Code, § 2800.2), unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (count 3; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and driving on a license suspended fo r a prior driving under the influence conviction (count 4; Veh. Code, § 14601.2). The complaint allege d as to counts 1 through 3 that defendant was released on bail or on his own rec ognizance when he committed the offenses (§ 12022.1). Defendant waived preliminar y hearing and jury trial as to both cases. The cases, previously joined fo r trial on the prosecutor’s motion, were set for court trial. Before court trial was to begin, defendant entered no contest pleas as to all counts in both cases and admitted the on-ba il enhancement in case No. CM036383. According to the probation report, in case No. CM035948, a police officer saw defendant around 2:30 a.m. on March 21, 2012 , checking door handles on vehicles in an apartment complex parking lot. The officer then saw a vehicl e with two suspects inside fleeing the scene. The vehicle did not yield to the officer’s attempts to stop it. A chase at speeds over 90 miles per hour ensued. The ch ase terminated near an orchard, where the vehicle (which turned out to be stolen) wa s found. Defendant was later spotted walking on the roadway and arrested. In case No. CM036383, around 2:30 a.m. on April 3, 2012, a police officer saw a vehicle, determined to be stolen, at an AM/PM gas station; defendant was the sole occupant. When the officer tr ied to make contact, defendant fled in the vehicle; a chase at speeds over 80 miles per hour ensued. Defendant drove into an orchard, then made a U-turn and drove head on into the pursuing polic e vehicle. After leaving his vehicle, he was arrested. The trial court denied defendant’s reque st for probation and sentenced defendant to a total state prison term of nine years, cons isting of eight years four months in case No. CM036383 (five years, the upper term, on count 1, two years consec utive for the on-bail enhancement, eight months consecutive on count 2, and eight months consecutive on3 count 3, with a concurrent jail sentence on count 4), plus eight months consecutive on count 1 (with a concurrent jail sentence on co unt 2) in case No. CM035948. The court awarded defendant 608 days of presentenc e custody credit in case No. CM036383 (304 actual days and 304 cond uct days) and 17 days in case No. CM035948 (9 actual days and 8 conduct days). The court imposed a $280 re stitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $280 suspended parole revoca tion restitution fine (§ 1202.45) as to each case, with restitution to the victims in both cases to be determined later; the court also imposed an aggregate $240 court operations fee ($160 in case No. CM036383 and $80 in case No. CM035948) (§ 1465.8), and an aggregate $180 conviction a ssessment ($120 in case No. CM036383 and $60 in case No. CM 035948) (Gov. Code, § 70373). We appointed counsel to represent defenda nt on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of th e right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More th an 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Ha ving undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BLEASE , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

MURRAY , J.