1

Filed 4/29/15 P. v. Villegas CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

RAYMOND JOE VILLEGAS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 E061862 

 (Super.Ct.No. INF1200178) 

 OPINION 

 APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David B. Downing, 

Judge. Affirmed. 

 William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

I 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

On May 2, 2012, an amended information charged defendant and appellant 

Raymond Joe Villegas with felony receipt of stolen property under Penal Code1 section 

496, subdivision (a) (count 1); and misdemeanor resisting arrest under section 148, 

subdivision (a)(1) (count 2). The amended information also alleged seven prison priors 

under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Moreover, the amended information alleged that 

defendant was ineligible for probation under section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). 

On May 3, 2012, the jury found defendant guilty as charged. On May 7, 2012, the 

trial court found prison priors 1 through 6 to be true, and granted the prosecution’s 

motion to dismiss prison prior 7. The court also found defendant to be in violation of his 

felony probation in another case. 

On June 15, 2012, the trial court imposed an eight-year county jail sentence under 

section 1170, subdivision (h). The court custody term comprised the upper term of three 

years on count 1, and an additional five years for prison priors 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The court 

stayed the sentence on prison prior 2 on the grounds that defendant served it concurrently 

with prison prior 1. The court also imposed a concurrent term of three years under 

section 1170, subdivision (h), for the probation violation. 

 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless specified otherwise. 
3

On May 15, 2014, the trial court received a notice of appeal submitted by 

defendant’s trial counsel on behalf of defendant. The court rejected the notice as 

untimely. On September 12, 2014, we granted defendant’s habeas corpus petition and 

ordered the lower court to deem defendant’s notice of appeal as timely filed. On 

September 17, 2014, the trial court filed the notice of appeal with a date of May 15, 2014. 

II

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

In the afternoon of January 11, 2012, David Galvan was working as a supervisor at 

the Vons grocery store located in the City of La Quinta. He observed defendant pushing 

a shopping cart inside the store with a large blue Lucerne cooler bag inside the cart. 

Sometime later, Galvan observed defendant approach the front of the store with the blue 

bag on his shoulder. The bag looked like it was full. Three checkout stands were open, 

but defendant did not go through any of the checkers as he left the store. Galvan asked 

defendant if he was going to pay for the items. Defendant did not look at him and 

continued to leave. Outside the market, defendant hopped on a bike and took off. 

Around that time, Deputy Brandon Klecker was on patrol and learned that a theft 

suspect fled from the Vons supermarket on a bike while carrying a blue bag. Shortly 

thereafter, the deputy observed defendant riding a silver bike with a wire basket attached 

that contained a blue bag. The deputy approached defendant as he was getting off his 

bike at a bus stop. The deputy told him to stop. Defendant dropped the silver bike and 

took off running. 
4

Defendant ran southbound across Highway 111 and was nearly struck by moving 

vehicles. The deputy chased him into a parking lot on the other side of the highway. The 

deputy saw defendant throw a small black baggie while he was running. The length of 

the chase was approximately four football fields. Defendant looked back in the deputy’s 

direction on two occasions during the chase. When the deputy caught up to defendant, he 

pushed defendant to the ground and secured him. Defendant told the deputy that he was 

“fast.” The deputy found marijuana in the black baggie that defendant threw and had 

been on defendant’s person. 

After defendant was detained, law enforcement officers secured the bike. When 

they opened the blue bag, they found four vodka bottles inside; the vodka was worth 

$107.71. The deputy also found an abandoned bike in the bushes nearby. This bike was 

not operable. The two tires were flat, the chain was broken, and it was covered in dust. 

Deputy Michelle Hart questioned defendant after he was arrested. He stated that 

he had not been to Vons. When he saw Deputy Klecker approach him, he dropped his 

bike and ran. Defendant stated that he ran because he did not like the police and he stays 

out of jail longer if he runs. He said he knew nothing about the marijuana that the 

deputies recovered. He also stated that the bike in the bushes belonged to him. He was 

not riding the silver bike with the silver basket. 
5

III 

ANALYSIS 

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to 

represent him. On December 29, 2014, defendant filed an opening brief and the People 

filed its response on February 27, 2015. On March 10, 2015, defendant filed a request to 

strike his opening brief and replace it with a brief under Anders v. California (1967) 386 

U.S. 738 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. “The reason for striking the prior 

brief is that the trial court granted [defendant’s] Proposition 47 petition under Penal Code 

section 1170.18. [Defendant’s] conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor and he was 

released from custody. Thus, the trial court’s ruling accomplished the purpose of this 

appeal as set forth in the opening brief.” We granted defendant’s request. On March 13, 

2015, counsel filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 

and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a 

summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to 

undertake a review of the entire record. 

 We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he 

has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we 

have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. 
6

IV 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

McKINSTER 

 Acting P. J. 

We concur: 

KING 

 J. 

MILLER 

 J.