P. v. Coldiron
Filed 5/15/07 P. v. Coldiron CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRIAN COLDIRON, Defendant and Appellant. | B190738 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA068090) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed.
Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Brian Coldiron appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.) He was sentenced to prison for the middle term of four years.
The record establishes that on Monday, September 26, 2005, Robert A. Curry, Jr. left his Long Beach home in the early afternoon for a business trip. He locked his house except the door that led from the house into the garage and a sliding glass window off the dinette area which was open about three or four inches. When Mr. Curry returned to his home on Wednesday, cabinets and dresser drawers were open. Televisions were ripped off the walls and missing. The dinette window was wide open as was the door from the kitchen to the patio. Stereo equipment had been removed from his home and stacked on the patio. Another television was partially out of its cabinet but still intact. Seven or eight watches were missing from a box in Mr. Currys bedroom.
Police recovered seven finger prints from a CD-DVD player that was at the bottom of the stack of stereo equipment on the patio. Four of the prints were identified as belonging to appellant and none belonged to Mr. Curry or anyone who worked for him.
Appellant testified on his own behalf that he had been drinking at a bar for approximately six hours and was pretty loaded. He met two men who wanted to continue drinking after the bar closed and accompanied them in their car to a house to continue partying. The men asked appellant to stay in the car and appellant assumed they were going to check with the owner of the house to see if it was okay to bring a stranger into the house. After approximately 10 minutes, he became upset with the situation and got out of the car and knocked on the door to the house. After no one answered, he heard the men in the back. Appellant hopped over the fence and found them. One of the men told appellant to be cool, to help [them] out and handed him a stack of equipment. Appellant did not know what was going on, put the equipment down and hopped back over the fence. He then walked for the rest of the evening. He did not know the men were going to break into a house and would not have gone with them if that was their intention. He did not contact the police because he was pretty intoxicated and just wanted to get away from the situation.
After appellant was arrested, he said he knew nothing about a burglary in Smugglers Cove. He was new to the area and did not know the location of Smugglers Cove. Even though the detective who questioned him said that his fingerprints were found on some stereo equipment, the day of trial was the first time appellant told the story of meeting two unknown people at a bar who committed the burglary.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On January 22, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
MANELLA, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
