P. v. Kroupa
Filed 12/16/08 P. v. Kroupa CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGER ROYAL SHANNON KROUPA, Defendant and Appellant. | F055185 (Super. Ct. No. MCR023124) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Edward P. Moffat, Judge.
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
On October 14, 2005, at 8:30 p.m. members of the Madera County Narcotics Enforcement Team arrived to conduct a parole search at the house where appellant, Roger Royal Shannon Kroupa, was living. After announcing their presence, a woman opened the door and led them to a bedroom where Kroupa was lying on a bed. On the floor next to the bed, an agent found a coin purse containing a small amount of heroin wrapped in plastic. Inside a laundry basket in the room, the officers found a purse belonging to Audrey McBride. The purse contained several credit cards and a check book belonging to McBride. McBride was contacted and stated that the purse was stolen during a burglary on October 2, 2005.
During an interview with police, Kroupa denied knowledge of the heroin and claimed he found the purse in a dumpster. According to Kroupa, he called McBride to return the purse and was told to leave the purse at the police station. However, he never did because he did not have the time.
On September 8, 2006, the district attorney filed a first amended information charging Kroupa with possession of stolen property (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a)) and possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that Kroupa had two prior convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)).
On January 3, 2008, Kroupa pled no contest to possession of stolen property and possession of heroin and admitted having a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. In exchange for his plea, the remaining enhancement and strike allegations were dismissed and he was promised a stipulated term of seven years four months. Kroupa also agreed not to file a Romero[1]motion.
On February 25, 2008, the court sentenced Kroupa to the stipulated term of seven years four months, the aggravated term of three years on his possession of stolen property conviction, doubled to six years because of Kroupas prior strike conviction, and a consecutive 16-month term, one-third the middle term of two years on his possession of heroin conviction, doubled to 16 months because of Kroupas prior strike conviction.
Kroupas appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Kroupa has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
*Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Dawson, J., and Kane, J.
[1]People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.
