1

Filed 12/15/15 P. v Keukelaar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Placer)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CARLOS RUEBEN KEUKELAAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

C079129

(Super. Ct. No. 62118138)

Appointed counsel for defendant Carlos Rueben Keukelaar has asked this court to 

review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would 

result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment and 

remand the matter to the trial court with directions to amend the abstract of judgment to 
2

reflect the amounts and statutory bases for all fees, fines, penalties, and assessments 

imposed.

I

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

On October 7, 2012, Wal-Mart employees reported to police that defendant was 

acting strangely. Records revealed defendant, a convicted felon, was on searchable 

probation. When police searched him, they found his pocket contained two “speed 

loaders,” each with five rounds of ammunition. A search of defendant’s car revealed a 

loaded .38-caliber revolver.

On November 21, 2013, defendant was charged by first amended information with 

receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a) -- count one),1 carrying a loaded 

firearm in public while having a prior conviction for a crime against a person and 

property and of a narcotics and dangerous drug violation (§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(5) --

count two), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1) -- count three), 

possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1) -- count four), and possession

of a firearm within 10 years of a qualifying conviction (§ 29805 -- count five). The 

amended information alleged that, as to counts two, three, and four, defendant suffered a 

prior felony conviction and, as to counts four and five, defendant suffered three prior 

qualifying convictions.

On January 31, 2014, defendant entered a plea of no contest to count four and 

admitted the prior misdemeanor conviction for violation of section 241, subdivision (b).

 

1

 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

On May 20, 2014, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed 

defendant on three years of formal probation subject to specified terms and conditions,

and ordered that he serve 90 days in county jail minus 28 days of presentence custody 

credit. The court also imposed fees and fines.

On July 29, 2014, defendant called for a taxi at the Sacramento International 

Airport. Taxi driver Pawan Sharma picked defendant up as a fare and drove him to WalMart in Natomas. They arrived to find the store closed. When defendant told Sharma to 

drive him to South Sacramento, Sharma told defendant to pay his fare first. Defendant 

pulled what appeared to be a gun out of his pocket, pointed it at Sharma, and demanded 

to be taken to South Sacramento. Fearing for his life, Sharma drove defendant instead to 

a Safeway in downtown Sacramento ostensibly to get food. When they arrived at 

Safeway, defendant got out of the cab and went into the grocery store. Sharma ran from 

his cab and called police. When defendant came out of the store, police detained him at 

gunpoint and found what looked like a small caliber firearm in his pocket. Upon further 

examination, police discovered it was a pellet gun.

On August 7, 2014, the probation department filed a petition for revocation of 

probation alleging defendant violated probation by drawing or exhibiting an imitation 

firearm in a threatening manner in violation of section 417.4.

On December 11, 2014, the trial court heard and denied defendant’s Marsden2

motion. The court also granted the People’s motion to amend the petition for violation of 

probation to add an allegation of kidnapping in violation of section 207. Thereafter, the 

court conducted a hearing on the contested probation violation.

 

2

 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).
4

The continued hearing on the contested probation violation was concluded on 

January 6, 2015. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sustained the petition and 

referred the matter to probation for a supplemental probation report.

On March 24, 2015, the trial court terminated probation and sentenced defendant 

to the middle term of two years in state prison. The court awarded defendant 217 days of 

presentence custody credit (109 actual days plus 108 conduct credits) and imposed a 

$240 restitution fine pursuant to section “1202.45 and they’ll change it if it’s the wrong 

subsection.”3

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

II

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that 

we 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 the right to file a 

supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 

days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. 

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We note, however, that 

the abstract of judgment does not reflect the fees and fines imposed by the trial court on 

May 20, 2014. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the trial court with directions to 

amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the amounts and statutory bases for all fees, 

fines, penalties, and assessments imposed.

 

3

 The abstract of judgment accurately reflects a $240 restitution fine pursuant to section 

1202.44 in light of the court’s revocation of probation. However, the abstract does not 

reflect any of the fees, fines, or assessments imposed by the court on May 20, 2014.
5

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of 

judgment in accordance with this opinion and to send a certified copy thereof to the 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

 /s/

Blease, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 /s/

Hull, J.

 /s/

Robie, J.