Filed 9/2/21 P. v. Carranza CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLES CARRANZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F081159

(Super. Ct. No. PCF389136)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary M. 

Johnson, Judge.

Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY

This appeal is from a final judgment imposing sentence and is appealable pursuant 

to Penal Code section 1237,1subdivision (a).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A felony complaint filed on November 20, 2019, charged Carranza with unlawful 

driving or taking of a motor vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1).

On February 19, 2020, Carranza pled no contest to count 1 pursuant to a plea 

agreement. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Carranza also pled no 

contest to various charges in several companion cases.

On March 10, 2020, the trial court denied a request to continue sentencing. As to 

count 1, the court denied probation and sentenced Carranza to the middle term of two 

years to run concurrent to a two-year term imposed in case no. PCF392317B. The court 

imposed a restitution fine of $500, a parole revocation fine of $500, a court operations fee 

of $40, and a conviction assessment of $30. 

On May 11, 2020, Carranza filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court granted 

a certificate of probable cause.

This court denied Carranza’s motion to consolidate this appeal with appeal 

no. F081156 by order dated December 16, 2020.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to the probation officer’s report, on November 19, 2019, at 

approximately 9:20 a.m., officers patrolling a Wal-Mart parking lot noticed a blue Honda 

Civic. Checking the Tulare County “hot sheet,” they confirmed that the vehicle had been 

reported stolen the previous day. Carranza, who was in the driver’s seat, told officers he 

had borrowed car from his friend Luis. While still at the scene, the victim J.H. arrived 

1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3.

and retrieved her vehicle. Carranza was arrested and booked into the Tulare County 

Sheriff’s Adult Pre-trial facility. 

APPELLATE COURT REVIEW

Carranza’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that summarizes 

the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the record 

independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes 

the declaration of appellate counsel indicating Carranza was advised he could file his

own brief with this court. By letter on February 2, 2021, we invited Carranza to submit 

additional briefing. To date, he has not done so.

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

ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.