1

Filed 5/6/22 P. v. Wright CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES LEE WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A158724

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. 05-181301-3)

This is an appeal from a final judgment following a jury trial that 

convicted defendant James Lee Wright of taking a vehicle without the 

owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appointed appellate counsel 

filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in 

which he raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent 

review of the record. Defendant has not exercised his right to file a 

supplemental brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2018, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an 

information charging defendant with one count of driving or taking a vehicle 

without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and one count of receiving a 

stolen motor vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). As to both counts, it was 

alleged that pursuant to Penal Code section 666.5, defendant had multiple 

prior convictions for driving or taking a vehicle without consent and a prior 
2

conviction for receiving a stolen motor vehicle. The information further 

alleged that defendant had served three prior prison terms for felony 

convictions and that the new offenses amounted to probation violations in 

two other cases.

The charges stem from a vehicle theft on May 15, 2018. Chris R.

reported his Acura missing from the Warm Springs BART station, where he 

parked it earlier that day. The next day, while on assignment to a vehicle 

theft task force, Sergeant Zachary Blume of the Pinole Police Department 

went to defendant’s address and found Chris R.’s Acura parked across the 

street. Sergeant Blume had the Acura towed. He also located two 

surveillance cameras mounted on a neighbor’s house, one of which pointed in 

the direction where the Acura was parked. Sergeant Blume and another 

officer reviewed and collected the footage from the cameras that showed 

defendant arriving in the Acura earlier that day, parking, and walking to his 

residence.

Defendant was arrested and interviewed by Sergeant Blume after the 

sergeant read defendant his rights and confirmed defendant understood 

them. The interview was recorded. Defendant admitted taking the Acura so 

he could make a scheduled court appearance but insisted he did not 

“intentionally do it to deprive anybody of their car or anything.” Defendant 

agreed to write Chris R. an apology letter for stealing his car. Defendant 

wrote the apology letter and read it aloud to Sergeant Blume during the 

interview. In the letter, defendant stated, “I really do apologize for . . . me 

stealing your car. It was out of necessity . . . , which does not make it okay, 

but it still happened.”

At trial, Chris R. testified that the day after he reported his car stolen, 

he was notified by the Pinole Police Department that his Acura was 
3

recovered and was in a tow yard. When Chris R. picked up his car, his key 

did not quite work in the ignition, and an employee at the tow yard turned it 

on using a “screwdriver or something.” Chris R. determined his Acura was 

worth in the lower range of $1,000 to $2,000 based on a search of the Blue 

Book and his maintenance of the vehicle. Chris R. did not recognize 

defendant; nor did he give him permission to take, drive, or possess his 

Acura.

During Sergeant Blume’s testimony, the defendant’s recorded interview 

and footage from the surveillance cameras were played for the jury. 

Defendant’s apology letter was admitted into evidence. Sergeant Blume 

testified he was familiar with defendant based on a prior arrest after a traffic 

enforcement stop during which Sergeant Blume determined defendant was 

driving a stolen vehicle. At the time of the prior arrest, defendant stated the

relevant Vehicle Code and Penal Code sections and said it could not be 

proved that he actually stole the vehicle. Defendant also boasted to Sergeant 

Blume about committing a large number of vehicle thefts.

The jury returned a guilty verdict for one felony count of unlawfully 

driving or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, 

subd. (a)).

1

After the jury trial, the court held a separate bench trial on the prior 

conviction enhancements. The court found true three prior automobile theft 

convictions (Pen. Code, § 666.5) and all three prior prison term allegations 

(former Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed a six-year split 

sentence comprised of the enhanced middle term of three years for taking a 

1 During trial, the felony count for receiving a stolen motor vehicle 

(Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)) was removed from the jury’s consideration by 

the court and then later dismissed by the prosecution during the sentencing 

hearing.
4

vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 

§ 666.5) plus consecutive one-year terms for each of the three prior prison 

term enhancements (former Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court ordered 

defendant to serve three years in county jail and three years on mandatory 

supervision and stayed all fines and fees on ability to pay grounds. 

Defendant was awarded 476 days of presentence credits.

Defense counsel filed a late notice of appeal with this court, and we 

subsequently granted defendant’s motion for constructive filing of his late 

notice of appeal. Appellate counsel was appointed, and he filed a motion for 

stay of appeal and limited remand for defendant to seek relief in the trial 

court under Senate Bill No. 136.2 This court granted the motion, and on 

April 21, 2021, the trial court held a hearing and struck defendant’s prison 

priors and deemed his sentence complete. The amended abstract of judgment

states defendant’s sentence as three years for taking a vehicle without the 

owner’s consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 666.5), which is 

deemed served in full, plus restitution fines and court assessments, all of 

which are stayed.

DISCUSSION

Neither appointed counsel nor defendant has raised any issue for our 

review. Upon our own independent review of the record, we agree none 

exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) The jury unanimously found 

2 Effective January 1, 2020, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 136, the oneyear prior prison term enhancement set forth in former Penal Code section 

667.5, subdivision (b) only applies to “each prior separate prison term” “for a 

sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the 

Welfare and Institutions Code . . . .” (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1.) Defendant 

was sentenced to three separate and consecutive one-year terms pursuant to 

former Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) based on prior convictions 

that were not sexually violent offenses.
5

defendant guilty. The jury found true two special findings: that the 

defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of his vehicle and that 

the vehicle was worth more than $950. The jury’s findings are supported by 

the evidence produced at trial, including the testimony of Chris R. and

Sergeant Blume, the defendant’s recorded statement, and the surveillance 

video. The trial court properly exercised its discretion by admitting evidence 

of defendant’s prior uncharged conduct—a 2016 arrest involving a stolen 

vehicle—to prove his intent. (People v. Ewoldt (1994) 7 Cal.4th 380, 400, 402

[uncharged conduct sufficiently similar to the charged offense is admissible to 

prove defendant’s intent], superseded in part by statute on another ground as 

stated in People v. Britt (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 500, 505–506.)

The trial court sentenced defendant to the elevated middle term (three 

years) for felony car theft with a prior conviction for the same. The trial court 

also imposed one additional year in county jail for each prison prior, pursuant 

to former Penal Code section 667.5, which were later stricken. The defendant 

was awarded time credit during sentencing and resentencing. The trial court 

suspended payment of each of the fines and fees imposed in both sentences.

The trial court’s decisions were proper. We find no reasonably arguable 

appellate issue, and we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with his 

responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 440–441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
6

_________________________

Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Simons, J.

_________________________

Needham, J.

A158724/People v. Wright