1 Filed 4/29/15 P. v. Villegas CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELL ATE 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 informa tion charged defendant and appellant Raymond Joe Villegas with felony receip t of stolen propert y under Penal Code 1 section 496, subdivision (a) (count 1); and misdemea nor resisting arrest under section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (count 2). The amended in formation also alleged seven prison priors under section 667.5, subdivis ion (b). Moreover, the amende d information alleged that defendant was ineligible for probation under section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). On May 3, 2012, the jury found defendant guilty as ch arged. 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 cust ody term comprised the upper term of three years on count 1, and an additiona l five years for prison priors 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The court stayed the sentence on prison pr ior 2 on the grounds that defe ndant served it concurrently with prison prior 1. The court also impos ed 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 receiv ed a notice of appeal submitted by defendant’s trial counsel on behalf of defe ndant. The court rejected the notice as untimely. On September 12, 2014, we gran ted 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 no tice of appeal with a date of May 15, 2014.
II STATEMENT OF FACTS In the afternoon of January 11, 2012, David Galvan was wo rking 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. Outsid e the market, defendant hopp ed 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 defenda nt 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 parki ng lot on the other side of the highway. The deputy saw defendant throw a small black ba ggie while he was running. The length of the chase was approximately four football fields . Defendant looked b ack 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 ma rijuana in the black baggie that defendant threw and had been on defendant’s person. After defendant was detained, law enforcem ent officers secure d 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 questio ned defendant after he was arrested. He stated that he had not been to Vons. When he saw De puty 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 th e marijuana that the deputies recovered. He also stated that the bi ke in the bushes belong ed to him. He was not riding the silver bike with the silver basket.5 III ANALYSIS After defendant appealed, and upon his re quest, this court appointed counsel to represent him. On December 29, 2014, defend ant filed an opening brief and the People filed its response on February 27, 2015. On Marc h 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 [defe ndant’s] Proposition 47 pe tition under Penal Code section 1170.18. [Defendant’s] conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor and he was released from custody. Thus, the trial c ourt’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 arguabl e issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. We offered defendant an op portunity 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.