Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA046161, Harvey Giss, Judge.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Damon Louis Matheus appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court found him guilty of evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and found true the allegations of three prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and five prior convictions qualifying as “strikes” (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i); 1170.12). The court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life, and ordered the sentence on the prior prison term allegations to be stricken.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant stipulated to submitting on the preliminary hearing transcript at trial. At trial, the People also presented testimony of Officer Garrett Peyton.
On January 4, 2004, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Los Angeles Police Officer Ryan Marshall and his partner were on duty in a marked patrol car near the intersection of Hillrose Street and Nassau Avenue in Los Angeles County when they saw defendant driving a motorcycle. Defendant turned eastbound onto Nassau Avenue, accelerated, and ran a stop sign. Officer Marshall accelerated the patrol car to catch up with defendant and observed him run another stop sign, cross the double yellow lines, and cause other vehicles to swerve out of his way. After defendant ran another stop sign, Officer Marshall activated his red lights and siren.
Defendant led the officers on a 20-minute, 18.2 mile, high-speed chase, primarily through residential streets. The chase ended when defendant collided with a Chrysler sedan and was thrown from his motorcycle into the street. Defendant’s motorcycle slid under another vehicle.
Officer Garrett Peyton accompanied defendant in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Defendant spontaneously said that he had not slept in about three days because he had been doing methamphetamine. He also said that he thought about stopping but he might have “dope in [his] pocket in a piece of tape.”
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
Defendant’s prior strike convictions included five burglaries (§ 459), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and two convictions of battery on a police officer (§ 243, subd. (c)). Defendant’s attorney filed a Romero motion requesting the trial court to set aside four out of the five prior strikes. Counsel argued that the present offense was not a serious or violent felony, the five prior convictions were part of a methamphetamine-induced crime spree and did not show a recurring pattern of serious or violent criminal conduct, and there was a strong likelihood that defendant would spend the rest of his life in prison if a three-strike sentence were imposed.
Additionally, at the sentencing hearing, defendant’s sister, mother and a friend testified in his behalf. According to defendant’s sister and mother, the judge in the case out of which the burglaries arose, Judge Peven, and defendant’s attorney told defendant that all the burglary convictions would be counted as only one strike. On that basis, defendant agreed to plead to the burglary charges rather than go to trial. The trial court responded that defendant “can do a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the validity of the priors. That is not before me at this time . . . .”
The trial court acknowledged that it had carefully reviewed the files regarding the prior convictions and considered the seriousness of the implications of the three-strikes sentence for defendant. It also noted that defendant’s present offense, while not a serious or violent felony, still was “extremely dangerous,” and defendant was on parole at the time. Considering the circumstances of the prior burglaries and sentence imposed for them, as well as the other factors, the trial court felt that to strike enough priors to eliminate the 25 to life three-strikes sentence would be an abuse of discretion. The court therefore denied the Romero motion.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a request for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On March 5, 2007, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to submit personally by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions or arguments that he wanted us to consider. To date, we have received no response from defendant. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s counsel has complied fully with her responsibilities. No arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: VOGEL, Acting P. J., ROTHSCHILD, J.