Court Opinion

ID: 9399576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-05 19:05:06.174294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.965822
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/5/23 P. v. Garcia CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.11 15.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                    B323594

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. KA129261)
           v.

 MATTHEW ANDREW GARCIA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed.
     Andrew F. Alire, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                 _______________________
       Police officers discovered defendant Matthew Andrew
Garcia at a gas station in Claremont in possession of a stolen
truck, methamphetamine, and a handgun. A jury convicted
Garcia of possession of a controlled substance while armed with a
firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)) and three other
offenses related to the incident. The trial court sentenced him to
nine years and four months in prison.
       The attorney appointed to represent Garcia on appeal filed
a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)
raising no issues. When an attorney files such a brief, we are
required to allow the defendant an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief (id. at p. 439), and we must “conduct a review
of the entire record” (id. at p. 441). Garcia did not file a
supplemental brief, and upon review of the record, we have
“found no arguable issue.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106,
124.) We therefore affirm the judgment.
                                  I
       On the evening of December 29, 2021, an automated police
camera at a major intersection in Claremont captured an image
of a license plate belonging to a truck that had been reported as
stolen. The Claremont Police Department’s computer system
alerted officers in the area, and an officer soon spotted the vehicle
in question—a white Ford F-250 pickup—parked at a gas station.
       After waiting for backup to arrive, the officer ordered the
man seated in the driver’s seat, later identified as Garcia, to put
his hands up. Garcia got out of the truck holding a black
backpack and fled on foot, dropping the backpack on the apron
where the gas station’s driveway led out to the street. Two
officers gave chase, caught up to Garcia, and detained him
without further incident.

                                  2
      A third officer retrieved the backpack and found it
contained Garcia’s photo ID card, a loaded handgun, and a baggie
containing a substance that the officer believed to be crystal
methamphetamine. A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
criminalist later tested the substance recovered from the
backpack and determined that it weighed 0.427 grams and
indeed contained methamphetamine. The officer who first
spotted Garcia’s truck testified that any amount over 0.2 grams is
a usable amount of methamphetamine.
      Officers found the truck’s ignition appeared to have been
tampered with. In addition, there was a flathead screwdriver on
the driver’s seat, which could potentially be used to start the
truck without a key. Officers also discovered a set of keys inside
the truck, but not the key to operate the truck.
      The truck’s owner noticed eight days before Garcia’s arrest
that the truck had gone missing, and reported it stolen. He did
not know Garcia and had not given him or anyone else
permission to possess the truck. The truck’s ignition had been
undamaged when the owner last saw it. The owner believed the
truck was worth at least $10,000.
                                 II
      An information charged Garcia with one count each of
possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)); possession of a firearm
by a felon1 (Pen. Code,2 § 29800, subd. (a)(1)); receiving a stolen

      1Garcia stipulated for purposes of this count that he had
previously been convicted of a felony.
      2 Unless otherwise specified, subsequent statutory
references are to the Penal Code.

                                  3
vehicle (§ 496d); and resisting or delaying a peace officer (§ 148,
subd. (a)(1)).
       A jury convicted Garcia on all four counts. Prior to
sentencing, Garcia admitted that he had been convicted in 2017
of mayhem (§ 203), which is a serious (see § 1192.7, subd. (c)(2))
and violent (see § 667.5, subd. (c)(2)) felony for purposes of the
three strikes law (§§ 667, subd. (a)(4), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1)). The
trial court denied Garcia’s motion under People v. Superior Court
(Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to strike the prior conviction for
purposes of sentencing.
       The court sentenced Garcia to the high term of four years
for possession of a controlled substance while armed with a
firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)),3 plus a
consecutive sentence of eight months, or one-third the middle
term, for receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d). The court doubled
those terms because of Garcia’s prior strike conviction, yielding
an aggregate sentence of nine years and four months. The court
also imposed a concurrent term of 364 days for resisting or
delaying a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), and stayed the
sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800,
subd. (a)(1)) pursuant to section 654. Lastly, the court imposed
various monetary fines and assessments.
                                 III
      When Garcia’s appellate attorney filed the Wende brief on
February 2, 2023, the attorney stated that he had provided
Garcia with a copy of the record and the brief and informed him

      3 The court’s imposition of the high term was based on its
consideration of Garcia’s prior convictions, as permitted by
section 1170, subdivision (b)(3).

                                 4
that he had the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days.
On February 7, 2023, we sent Garcia a letter with the same
information. We received no response. We have examined the
entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and
Garcia’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of
counsel. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 125-126;
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                           WEINGART, J.

We concur:

             CHANEY, J.

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.

                                 5