P. v. Fear

Filed 2/21/08 P. v. Fear CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Frank F. Fasel, Judge. Affirmed.

Gerald P. Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

We appointed counsel to represent defendant Chad Michael Fear on appeal. Counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court he found no issues to argue on his behalf. We provided defendant 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him.

After examining the record pursuant to People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we conclude there are no arguable issues warranting further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm.

An information filed May 18, 2006, charged defendant with grand theft (Pen. Code, 487) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,  496) between April 1 and April 3, 2005. The evidence at the January 2007 jury trial disclosed that in early April 2005, Nasser Abbassi kept personal property in plastic tubs and other containers in a third-floor unit at a self-storage facility in Westminster. On April 3, he discovered numerous items missing, including a stamp collection worth at least $50,000. Abbassi determined the door to his storage unit could be opened without removing or breaking the padlock. Abbassi notified the management and posted a substantial reward.

Two customers and an employee reported observing defendant, who leased a second-floor unit, acting suspiciously while in the vicinity of Abbassis unit around the time of the theft. One tenant, Oscar Sanders, saw defendant on the morning of April 2 with a cart, squatting in front of Abbassis unit while looking at the lock and holding a flashlight. When Sanders turned on the light, defendant jumped up and stated, there is somebody hiding in these storages and I am going to . . . get them. A second visitor saw defendant the same day getting on the elevator with a cart loaded with Tupperware tubs and boxes near the open door of Abbassis unit. Later that same afternoon, Sanders spotted defendant pushing a cart loaded with similar appearing containers toward defendants unit. Acting on Sanderss report, a female employee confronted defendant on the third floor, but defendants odd behavior frightened her.

On April 19, defendant allowed a police detective and Abbassi to enter his unit. Abbassi identified 50 or more containers of property belonging to him. Defendant told the detective he found the stolen property along with some of his own missing items near the dumpster, although he could not recall when. Abbassi discovered more of his property when defendant and his father cleaned out defendants unit on May 12. All told, Abbassi recovered most of his possessions.

Defendant testified he found Abbassis containers on April 1 or 2 near a dumpster where people frequently discarded items. A pack rat, he moved them to his storage unit. He did not learn the items had been stolen until the management double-locked his unit and police arrived. A few weeks earlier, around March 15, someone had taken property from his unit and placed it in the dumpster. For several days around the time of the Abbassi theft, he heard noises that sounded like someone banging on a storage door or lock on the third floor. He investigated and reported his concerns to the management. He denied the suspicious behavior described by Sanders.

The jury found defendant guilty of grand theft on January 31, 2007. The trial court dismissed the receiving stolen property count. On March 23, 2007, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation on various terms and conditions, including service of a one-year jail term. The court ordered victim restitution of $500 and a $100 restitution fine.

The only potential claim appellate counsel identifies is whether substantial evidence supports defendants grand theft conviction. Based on the facts related above and our independent review of the record, we discern no basis to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, nor did we uncover any other arguable issues requiring further briefing. The judgment is affirmed.

ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

OLEARY, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.