Filed 11/5/25 P. v. Vargas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E084537
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV23004214)
VINCENT FREDERICK VARGAS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson
Uhler, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Vincent Frederick Vargas guilty of
carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a), count 1), second degree robbery (Pen. Code,
1 § 211, count 2), and evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 3).1 The
court thereafter found true allegations that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony
(Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12,
subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)).2 The court sentenced defendant to 15 years of
imprisonment.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a
statement of the case, and identifying three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the
court erred in determining defendant waived his Miranda3 rights during his postarrest
interview; (2) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s Romero4 motion; and
(3) whether the court improperly imposed five years on the prior serious felony
conviction enhancement.
We offered defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. We affirm.
1 The jury found defendant not guilty of criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422, count 4).
2 The court also found true two of six aggravating factors alleged by the People.
3 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
2 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The victim testified that on December 7, 2023, as soon as he finished pumping
gas, defendant lunged at him with a gun. Defendant told the victim to give him
everything he had, or he would kill the victim. The victim gave defendant his money;
defendant grabbed the keys from the victim’s hand. Defendant entered the victim’s truck
and drove away.
An officer testified that he heard dispatch broadcast a call about the robbery and
carjacking. They gave a description of the suspect and the license plate of the vehicle.
Thereafter, the officer saw a vehicle fitting the description. He attempted to conduct a
traffic stop on the vehicle by activating his lights.
The vehicle continued through a red light at an intersection. The officer then put
on both his lights and sirens. The vehicle got on the freeway. Three to four other marked
patrol units joined him in attempting to pull the vehicle over. Between 20 to 30 minutes
into the pursuit, officers requested California Highway Patrol to deploy spike strips.
A total of five attempts to stop the vehicle using spike strips were made; the driver
maneuvered around the first four. On the fifth attempt, the vehicle’s front wheels were
rendered inoperable. The vehicle came to a stop shortly thereafter. The pursuit lasted
nearly two hours over the course of about 70 miles from Fontana to Valencia. At the end
of the pursuit, the driver, defendant, was arrested.
Defense counsel sought to exclude evidence of defendant’s postarrest statements
to the officer. In a hearing prior to trial, the officer testified he arrested defendant at the
3 end of the pursuit. He read defendant his Miranda rights prior to speaking with him.
Defendant was handcuffed during the interview. Most of defendant’s answers were
coherent. Defendant indicated he understood his rights. Defendant never indicated he
did not wish to speak with the officer. Their entire conversation was recorded via the
officer’s body worn camera.
The People played the video recording of the interview. After the officer
Mirandized defendant,5 defendant said he ran from the officers because he got scared: “I
didn’t wanna go to jail.” He believed that if he stopped for the officers after they
activated their lights and sirens, he would be arrested because he took the car.
Defendant told the victim that he was going to take his car. He told the victim to
give him the car keys. Defendant agreed that the victim was scared. Defendant
repeatedly apologized for taking the victim’s car. When the officer asked if he was high,
defendant responded, “Something like that.”
The court asked the officer, “Did you notice any symptoms of him being under the
influence of a controlled substance at the time?” The officer responded, “At that time I
did not. I was looking at his mouth, did not see any white coating that you typically see
from the meth user, and then while handcuffing him, normally their hands get fidgety and
that was not observed.”
5 The officer did not ask whether, knowing the rights the officer had read defendant, defendant wanted to waive those rights and speak to the officer.
4 Defense counsel contended that because defendant exhibited symptoms of
intoxication, and the officer failed to expressly ask defendant to waive his right to remain
silent, defendant’s statements to the officer should be excluded from evidence at trial.
The court ruled, “There’s no indication that he was heavily under the influence of
any type of controlled substance, he never appeared confused, he answered directly,
coherently and in detail. So when I look at the totality of circumstances, I believe that his
waiver was implied, but voluntary and [his] statement to law enforcement also under the
totality of circumstances was voluntary.”
At trial, the People played the video of the officer’s interview with defendant. The
People also played surveillance video from the gas station, which reflected the robbery.
Prior to sentencing, defense counsel filed points and authorities in support of a
request that the court strike defendant’s prior strike conviction. Defense counsel
contended the near 10-year age of defendant’s prior strike conviction and his traumatic
upbringing warranted striking the prior strike conviction. The People responded that
defendant’s criminal history, including convictions for four prior felonies, three prior
misdemeanors, and multiple failed opportunities on probation and parole kept him within
the purview of the three strikes law.
At the sentencing hearing on August 13, 2024, the court noted, “So in regards to
Romero decision and 1385 of the Penal Code, I have to consider the following factors:
The defendant’s background, the nature of the present offenses, and other individualized
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 11/5/25 P. v. Vargas CA4/2
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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E084537
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV23004214)
VINCENT FREDERICK VARGAS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson
Uhler, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant Vincent Frederick Vargas guilty of
carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a), count 1), second degree robbery (Pen. Code,
1 § 211, count 2), and evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 3).1 The
court thereafter found true allegations that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony
(Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)) and prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12,
subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)).2 The court sentenced defendant to 15 years of
imprisonment.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a
statement of the case, and identifying three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the
court erred in determining defendant waived his Miranda3 rights during his postarrest
interview; (2) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s Romero4 motion; and
(3) whether the court improperly imposed five years on the prior serious felony
conviction enhancement.
We offered defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. We affirm.
1 The jury found defendant not guilty of criminal threats. (Pen. Code, § 422, count 4).
2 The court also found true two of six aggravating factors alleged by the People.
3 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
2 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The victim testified that on December 7, 2023, as soon as he finished pumping
gas, defendant lunged at him with a gun. Defendant told the victim to give him
everything he had, or he would kill the victim. The victim gave defendant his money;
defendant grabbed the keys from the victim’s hand. Defendant entered the victim’s truck
and drove away.
An officer testified that he heard dispatch broadcast a call about the robbery and
carjacking. They gave a description of the suspect and the license plate of the vehicle.
Thereafter, the officer saw a vehicle fitting the description. He attempted to conduct a
traffic stop on the vehicle by activating his lights.
The vehicle continued through a red light at an intersection. The officer then put
on both his lights and sirens. The vehicle got on the freeway. Three to four other marked
patrol units joined him in attempting to pull the vehicle over. Between 20 to 30 minutes
into the pursuit, officers requested California Highway Patrol to deploy spike strips.
A total of five attempts to stop the vehicle using spike strips were made; the driver
maneuvered around the first four. On the fifth attempt, the vehicle’s front wheels were
rendered inoperable. The vehicle came to a stop shortly thereafter. The pursuit lasted
nearly two hours over the course of about 70 miles from Fontana to Valencia. At the end
of the pursuit, the driver, defendant, was arrested.
Defense counsel sought to exclude evidence of defendant’s postarrest statements
to the officer. In a hearing prior to trial, the officer testified he arrested defendant at the
3 end of the pursuit. He read defendant his Miranda rights prior to speaking with him.
Defendant was handcuffed during the interview. Most of defendant’s answers were
coherent. Defendant indicated he understood his rights. Defendant never indicated he
did not wish to speak with the officer. Their entire conversation was recorded via the
officer’s body worn camera.
The People played the video recording of the interview. After the officer
Mirandized defendant,5 defendant said he ran from the officers because he got scared: “I
didn’t wanna go to jail.” He believed that if he stopped for the officers after they
activated their lights and sirens, he would be arrested because he took the car.
Defendant told the victim that he was going to take his car. He told the victim to
give him the car keys. Defendant agreed that the victim was scared. Defendant
repeatedly apologized for taking the victim’s car. When the officer asked if he was high,
defendant responded, “Something like that.”
The court asked the officer, “Did you notice any symptoms of him being under the
influence of a controlled substance at the time?” The officer responded, “At that time I
did not. I was looking at his mouth, did not see any white coating that you typically see
from the meth user, and then while handcuffing him, normally their hands get fidgety and
that was not observed.”
5 The officer did not ask whether, knowing the rights the officer had read defendant, defendant wanted to waive those rights and speak to the officer.
4 Defense counsel contended that because defendant exhibited symptoms of
intoxication, and the officer failed to expressly ask defendant to waive his right to remain
silent, defendant’s statements to the officer should be excluded from evidence at trial.
The court ruled, “There’s no indication that he was heavily under the influence of
any type of controlled substance, he never appeared confused, he answered directly,
coherently and in detail. So when I look at the totality of circumstances, I believe that his
waiver was implied, but voluntary and [his] statement to law enforcement also under the
totality of circumstances was voluntary.”
At trial, the People played the video of the officer’s interview with defendant. The
People also played surveillance video from the gas station, which reflected the robbery.
Prior to sentencing, defense counsel filed points and authorities in support of a
request that the court strike defendant’s prior strike conviction. Defense counsel
contended the near 10-year age of defendant’s prior strike conviction and his traumatic
upbringing warranted striking the prior strike conviction. The People responded that
defendant’s criminal history, including convictions for four prior felonies, three prior
misdemeanors, and multiple failed opportunities on probation and parole kept him within
the purview of the three strikes law.
At the sentencing hearing on August 13, 2024, the court noted, “So in regards to
Romero decision and 1385 of the Penal Code, I have to consider the following factors:
The defendant’s background, the nature of the present offenses, and other individualized
considerations.” “In review of the defendant’s background, he does have a rather
5 extensive history, during which he failed to comply with his terms and conditions of
felony probation, excluding his most recent in 2020.”
The court then reviewed defendant’s criminal history and history on probation,
community release, and parole. “So over a 12-year period, he has six convictions,
including the present case, three of which resulted from arrests or convictions involving
violence or threat of violence to a very vulnerable class of people: The elderly, the
bedridden, and a pregnant girlfriend. [¶] Many attempts have been made to rehabilitate
him, including formal grants of probation, state prison commitments.”
“As for the nature of the present offense, a mere ten months after completing
felony probation, he committed the new offense, during which he used fear to carjack an
elderly victim. I am confident that the defendant obviously didn’t have a firearm, but he
used an object to mimic a firearm and threatened to shoot and kill the victim if he didn’t
provide him with money and the keys to his truck.” The court denied defendant’s
Romero motion.
The court then sentenced defendant to 15 years of imprisonment, consisting of the
following: the midterm of five years doubled for the carjacking offense; the midterm of
three years on the robbery offense, imposed concurrently; and five years consecutive on
the prior serious felony conviction enhancement.6
6 Although not requested by defense counsel, the court expressly declined to exercise its discretion to strike the prior serious felony conviction enhancement.
6 II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J.
MENETREZ J.