P. v. Jefferson

Filed 1/26/09 P. v. Jefferson CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Corie McNeil Jefferson was charged by felony complaint filed June 29, 2007, with first degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460, subd. (a))[1] and resisting or deterring an officer ( 69). The complaint further alleged that defendant had two prior strikes ( 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)), and that he had served one prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)).

On September 21, 2007, the court appointed a psychotherapist to examine defendant pursuant to Evidence Code section 1017, and to make the results of that examination available to defendants counsel.

On June 9, 2008, defendant entered an unconditional plea of guilty to first degree burglary and no contest to resisting or deterring an officer. He admitted having two prior strikes and two prior serious felony convictions, and that he had served one prior prison term. The court referred the matter to the probation department for a full report.

The following summary of defendants offenses is taken from the probation officers report. On June 27, 2007, a woman was at the residence of her boyfriend, who lived with his parents, the Silveiras. As the woman was getting out of bed in the late morning, she heard someone in the backyard. She saw a shadow near a back window and heard someone trying to open the window. She then saw a shadow moving towards a sliding glass door. After seeing and hearing the door shatter, the woman grabbed a cordless telephone and ran into a bedroom. She locked the door and hid in the closet while calling 911. Before police arrived, she heard footsteps around the residence and heard someone trying to open the bedroom door.

When San Jose police officers arrived, defendant fled the scene. The officers pursued defendant on foot as he ignored orders to stop. After using a taser to subdue defendant, the officers took defendant into custody. In defendants possession were several items of jewelry that were identified as belonging to one of the residents.

Defendant initially told police officers that he went to the residence to assist a friend, who he thought lived at the residence. He then told officers that it was his friends idea to burglarize the residence, his friend took the items from a bedroom and gave the items to him, and he never entered the residence. When officers asked how he knew the items were from the bedroom, defendant just nodded. When asked why he wore rubber gloves while inside the residence, defendant denied going inside. When one officer told defendant that he was the responding officer who observed him inside the residence, defendant replied, I know man you got me. I gotta walk the walk now.

On July 15, 2008, defendant filed a motion requesting that the trial court strike the strikes pursuant to section 1385. The prosecutor filed opposition.

At a hearing on July 29, 2008, the trial court heard statements from defendant and his mother, argument from counsel, and recommendations by a deputy probation officer who was present at the hearing. The court struck the oldest strike, which was 12 years old, and explained that the current offense did not involve any weapons and defendant has mental health issues. The court also struck the prison prior. The court denied probation and sentenced defendant as follows: four years, double the lower term, on count 1 for first degree burglary; 16 months, one-third the doubled midterm, on count 2 for resisting or deterring an officer; and five years for each of defendants two prior serious felony convictions under section 667, subdivision (a). Defendants total term was 15 years and four months. The court made a general order of restitution. It also ordered defendant to pay $425 to Rogerio Silveira, a restitution fine of $6,000 ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a suspended parole revocation restitution fine of $6,000 ( 1202.45), and a court security fee of $40 ( 1465.8). Defendant was awarded a total of 56 days of custody credit.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________

MIHARA, J.

_________________________

mCADAMS, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.