Court Opinion

ID: 9385132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 22:03:03.728013+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.103318
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/5/23 P. v. Melgarejo 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F084922
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. F20905125)
                    v.

    JESUS MELGAREJO, JR.,                                                                 OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y.
Hamilton, Jr., Judge.
         Richard Jay Moller, 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., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Jesus Melgarejo, Jr., 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.
                                     BACKGROUND
       On June 2, 2020, Fresno police officers responded to a domestic disturbance
involving defendant, who was on supervised release with an ankle monitor. Defendant
and the victim left the scene before the officers arrived, but the officers spoke to
defendant’s sister. A few hours later, Fresno Police Officer Nathan Carr observed
defendant driving a vehicle with the victim as a passenger. Carr, who was in uniform and
driving a marked patrol vehicle, pursued the vehicle because defendant was wanted on
felony charges. Carr activated his flashing lights and siren and was within 50 yards of
defendant, but he refused to stop. He ran stop signs and drove about 40 miles per hour in
a 25-mile-per-hour zone, weaving in and out of traffic. Carr terminated his pursuit
because defendant was driving recklessly. Meanwhile, a police helicopter maintained
visual contact with defendant’s vehicle. Carr arrested defendant when he stopped at his
grandmother’s house, where his fellow gang members, whom he had summoned, were
waiting outside.1
       On March 16, 2022, the Fresno County District Attorney filed an information
charging defendant with evading an officer with willful disregard (Pen. Code, § 2800.2,
subd. (a); count 1). The information further alleged defendant had suffered a prior
“strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667,
subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).

1      These facts are taken from the preliminary hearing and probation report.

                                              2.
       On May 10, 2022, defendant pled no contest to count 1 in return for dismissal of
the prior strike allegation and imposition of a two-year sentence to be served concurrently
to the term in another case. The trial court granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss the
prior strike allegation.
       On July 15, 2022, the trial court determined that a concurrent sentence would not
be possible and, instead, imposed a 384-day sentence with credit for time served, with the
consent of the parties.
       On September 9, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
                                      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.

                                            3.