Court Opinion

ID: 9379634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 21:02:13.855029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.726421
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/15/23 P. v. Jimenez 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F084237
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. F21908086)
                    v.

    OSCAR JOE JIMENEZ,                                                                    OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Heather
Mardel Jones, Judge.
         Nancy Wechsler, 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 Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Oscar Joe Jimenez asked this court to review the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond.
Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant,
we affirm.
                             PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
       On December 30, 2021, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information
charging defendant with evading a police officer in willful and wanton disregard for the
safety of persons and property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1) and
misdemeanor driving with a suspended license after a drunk driving conviction (Veh.
Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a); count 2). The information further alleged defendant
committed count 1 while out on bail (Pen. Code, § 12022.1),1 and he had suffered a prior
“strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i),
1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).
       The trial court dismissed count 2 on the prosecution’s motion.
       On March 8, 2022, the jury convicted defendant of count 1. In a bifurcated
proceeding on the previous day, the court found the prior strike allegation true.
       At the sentencing hearing on April 6, 2022, the trial court dismissed the on-bail
enhancement. The court denied defendant’s request to reduce count 1 to a misdemeanor
and denied his Romero2 motion to strike the prior strike conviction pursuant to
section 1385. The court imposed the midterm of four years on count 1 (two years
doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law). The court granted credits and imposed
various fines and fees.

1      All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2      People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

                                             2.
       On April 19, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
                                          FACTS
       By the evening of August 2, 2021, the police had been called to an apartment in
Clovis approximately six times during the previous 24 hours over domestic disputes
involving defendant and his unwanted presence. A uniformed officer in a marked patrol
vehicle had responded to two or three of the calls, but he chose not to initiate a pursuit as
defendant left in his vehicle because of the dangers present at the particular time of day.
       On August 12, 2021, a team of police detectives were attempting to locate and
detain defendant at the apartment complex. The detectives, who were in uniform, were
driving two unmarked detective vehicles, which were Honda Accords that had been
internally modified with lights, sirens, and radio equipment. The vehicles had
“wig-wags,” flashing lights that alternated between red and blue, and also a solid red light
in the visor as required by law. A siren emanated from the front grill, but was not visible.
       The detectives observed and followed defendant’s vehicle as it approached the
apartment complex. The detectives planned to pin his vehicle in by blocking it with their
two vehicles in the parking lot. The first detective’s vehicle slowly approached
defendant’s vehicle head-on at about 10 miles per hour and activated all of his lights.
Defendant looked straight at the first detective, “locked eyes,” and then suddenly turned
and accelerated away before the second detective could block him in from behind. At
that point, the first detective activated his siren and pursued defendant. The second
detective, also with lights and siren, followed behind the first detective, who could see
the lights behind him.
       Defendant ran a red light on Willow Avenue and accelerated to about 70 miles per
hour. There was no other traffic, so the detectives continued their pursuit. When
defendant turned onto another street and slowed to under 30 miles per hour, the second
detective attempted to employ a pursuit intervention technique twice, but defendant
utilized counter maneuvers and was able to continue driving. His maneuvers suggested

                                              3.
he had been chased before. He continued to run stop signs and lights. He eventually
slowed, opened his window, and waved the second detective down. The detective
assumed this was a trick to get him to slow down. He pulled up to defendant, lowered his
window, and yelled at him to stop. They made eye contact and the detective repeated that
defendant needed to stop. The detective believed his uniform’s police shoulder patches,
including his corporal chevron stripes, were visible to defendant when their windows
were down. Defendant did not stop, but then made a U-turn and started to slow. The
detective continued telling him he needed to pull over. Defendant moved toward the curb
and came to a stop as the detectives blocked his vehicle. They pulled defendant from the
vehicle and handcuffed him. A small female passenger, who was fully reclined and had
not been visible, was in the passenger seat.
       Defendant testified that he and his wife had been arguing. They were in the
vehicle together on August 12, 2021, and she was pregnant with his child. At the
apartment complex, he heard a Honda Accord screeching, and then the two Honda
Accords chased him. He did not notice any lights and he did not really pay attention to
the sirens because he was focusing on keeping his pregnant wife safe. He noticed the
sirens and lights about midway through the chase when he and his wife called 911.
Eventually, while he was being rammed, the dispatcher told him it was the police chasing
him and he should pull over. Then he pulled over.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                               4.