P. v. Carroll














Filed 3/21/17 P. v. Carroll 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT LEE CARROLL,
Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B277439
(Super. Ct. No. 16F-01503)
(San Luis Obispo County)

Robert Lee Carroll appeals his conviction by jury of petty theft with prior theft related convictions. (Pen. Code,
§§ 484, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a).)[1] In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that appellant had suffered four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant was sentenced to four years state prison and ordered to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).
The evidence shows that a Costco loss prevention officer saw appellant put on a men’s Calvin Klein jacket, walk through the store past the cash registers with the jacket, and enter the restroom where a “No Merchandise Allowed” sign was posted. The jacket had a price tag attached under the left armpit with a lanyard attached to it. Appellant left the restroom and was detained 30 feet outside the store entrance wearing the jacket. As appellant was escorted to the manager’s officer, appellant asked if he could pay for the merchandise. The price tag was in the right jacket pocket.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On February 6, 2017, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions that he wished to raise on appeal. On March 8, 2017 and March 10, 2017, appellant submitted letter briefs stating, among other things, that he was denied the opportunity to present character witness testimony, that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel, and that the trial court erred in denying his Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) and request for an investigator. These contentions are not supported by the record. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 333.) Appellant has failed to show that he was denied a fair trial (Untied States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 678; People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1102-1103) or that, but for the alleged errors it is reasonably probably that appellant would have obtained a more favorable result. (See, e.g., People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241-1242.)
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)[2]
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.


PERREN, J.

Donald G. Umhofer, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________

Will Tomlinson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.



Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com



[1]All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
[2] Appellant has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (B281187) alleging the same ineffective assistance of counsel claims. In a separate order, filed concurrently with this opinion, we have denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus.