Court Opinion

ID: 9841274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 19:03:40.707308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:00.837201
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Jensen CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C097631

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. Nos. 22CF01891,
                                                                                  22CF02977, 22CF03294,
         v.                                                                             22CF04509)

BRANDON TYLER JENSEN,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Brandon Tyler Jensen filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
         We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

                                                             1
                                    BACKGROUND1
A.     Case No. 22CF01891
       In April 2021, defendant was in a car accident and was unable to provide proof of
insurance to the other driver. The other driver immediately reported the accident to her
insurance carrier, GEICO. Defendant failed to respond to a phone call from the other
driver’s insurance carrier. Defendant then tried to get insurance through a broker,
sending photographs of the car without including damage from the accident. An
insurance policy issued and became effective the following day. More than two weeks
later, defendant contacted his new insurance carrier and reported being involved in a car
accident. A claims adjuster from defendant’s insurance carrier contacted GEICO and
learned the accident occurred prior to defendant obtaining the policy.
       The People subsequently charged defendant with willfully making a false
insurance claim (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1))2 in Butte County Superior Court, case
No. 22CF01891 (case No. 891).
B.     Case No. 22CF02977
       On June 1, 2022, defendant failed to appear in court in Butte County Superior
Court, case No. 21F03638 (case No. 638). The People charged him with failure to appear
(§ 1320.5) while out on bail (§ 1320, subd. (b)) in Butte County Superior Court, case
No. 22CF02977 (case No. 977).
C.     Case No. 22CF03294
       On June 27, 2022, law enforcement responded to an alarm at a local middle
school. At the school, they found unlocked a door that should have been locked. There
were “pry marks” around the door trim, the deadbolt was on the ground and the closing

1      Defendant agreed the factual basis for his plea could be taken from police reports
and the probable cause declaration.
2      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                            2
mechanism was broken off. Nothing was taken from the school. Video surveillance
showed defendant prying the door open.
       The People charged defendant with commercial burglary (§ 459) and felony
vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) in Butte County Superior Court, case No. 22CF03294 (case
No. 294). The People also alleged defendant committed his crimes while out on bail in
Butte County Superior Court, case No. 21CF03638 (case No. 638).
D.     Case No. 22CF04509
       In July 2022, law enforcement responded to another alarm at the same local
middle school. At the school, they found one of the modular buildings had been forced
open and holes in the building’s windows. After finding marbles on the floor in the
classroom, school maintenance staff determined someone had used the marbles to break
the windows. Video showed defendant using a slingshot to shoot a marble through the
window, open the door, and enter the classroom.
       In Butte County Superior Court, case No. 22CF04509 (case No. 509), the People
charged defendant with felony vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)) and alleged he committed the
crime while out on bail in case Nos. 638 and 22CF00698.
E.     Plea and Sentence
       On September 21, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to willfully making a false
insurance claim in case No. 891. In case No. 977, he pleaded no contest to the charge of
failure to appear and admitted the on-bail enhancement. He pleaded no contest to second
degree burglary in case No. 294. He also pleaded no contest to vandalism in case
No. 509 and admitted the on-bail enhancement.
       The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years four months
in “county prison,” including the upper term of five years in case No. 891. In choosing
the upper term, the court found defendant did not stipulate to, nor did a jury find true,
aggravating factors; however, the court also found defendant’s prior convictions were
numerous and defendant served prior prison terms. Those aggravating factors, the court

                                              3
concluded, outweighed the single mitigating factor that defendant “pled at an early
stage.”
          At sentencing, the court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and
awarded him 212 days of custody credit. Defendant appeals without a certificate of
probable cause.
                                        DISCUSSION
          We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.
More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
          Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

                                               4
                                     DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                    /s/
                                                KEITHLEY, J.

We concur:

    /s/
EARL, P. J.

    /s/
MESIWALA, J.

       Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                            5