Opinion
D074144
12-19-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL ANTHONY ENSSLIN, Defendant and Appellant.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCN376028) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim Von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Paul Anthony Ensslin (aka Geoffrey Anthony Underdahl) was sentenced to prison for 11 years after a jury found him guilty of stealing a car and the trial court found true allegations concerning prior convictions and prison terms. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no grounds for reversal. We have reviewed the record and found no reversible error and therefore affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
When the sales manager of a car dealership was getting into his car at about 5:15 p.m. one day, he saw a new car from his dealership approach with no salesperson inside and no temporary registration on the windshield. When the driver saw the sales manager, the driver turned the car around and sped away. The sales manager pursued the car and confirmed with the dealership that it had not been sold. The car eventually stopped in a parking lot of a retail store. When a police officer arrived at the parking lot in response to a report the car had been stolen, the officer found Ensslin sitting in the driver's seat, with two key fobs for the car attached to a clip on his belt loop, and arrested him. The sales manager returned to the dealership and reviewed surveillance video from approximately 2:00 a.m. that day, which showed a man walking through the lot trying to open car doors and eventually driving off in the car in which Ensslin was later arrested.
A jury found Ensslin guilty of unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) The trial court found true allegations that Ensslin had a prior conviction of the same offense (id., § 10851, subd. (e)), had a prior conviction that constituted a strike under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and had served three prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court denied Ensslin's motion to dismiss the allegations concerning his prior strike conviction. (See id., § 1385, subd. (a); People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) It sentenced Ensslin to an 11-year prison term, consisting of four years for the conviction of unlawful taking or driving a vehicle with a prior conviction of the same offense (Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)), doubled to eight years based on the prior strike conviction (id., § 667, subd. (e)(1)), plus three consecutive terms of one year each for the prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)).
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts of the case and the proceedings in the trial court, raising no grounds for reversal, and inviting us to review the record independently for error, in accordance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). To assist us in that review, counsel suggested as an issue: "whether the trial court erred by denying [Ensslin's] motion to dismiss the strike conviction."
After we received the opening brief prepared by counsel, we notified Ensslin he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Although we granted him an extension of time to file such a brief, he has not done so.
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436, and identified no reversible error. Ensslin has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. GUERRERO, J.