P. v. Mestre CA2/6 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Mestre CA2/6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION SIX
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                  2d Crim. No. B242243
    (Super. Ct. No. BA392953)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                               (Los Angeles County)
    v.
    VINCENT I. MESTRE,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Vincent I. Mestre appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted
    him of corporal injury to a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and unlawfully
    taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted that he
    suffered a prior strike conviction and served a prior prison. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i),
    1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to state prison
    for seven years.
    Jennifer E., the victim, lived with her five children. Appellant lived with
    her for about a year. Jennifer owned a black Chevy Tahoe that appellant often used, with
    her consent.
    On August 24, 2011, appellant drove Jennifer and three of her children
    home in her Tahoe. Appellant got out of the Tahoe first. As Jennifer stepped from the
    Tahoe, appellant slammed its door on her face and arms.
    1
    All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
    On September 28, 2011, appellant was driving Jennifer’s Tahoe. She did
    not give him permission to drive it that day.
    We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel filed a
    brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v.
    Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    . We notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to
    advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. We have received no response from
    appellant.
    We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s
    attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.
    (People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 123-124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p.
    441.)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    PERREN, J.
    We concur:
    GILBERT, P.J.
    YEGAN, J.
    2
    Ray G. Jurado, Judge
    Superior Court County of Los Angeles
    ______________________________
    Lori E. Kantor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
    and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B242243

Filed Date: 6/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021