P. v. McClanahan
Filed 9/12/13 P. v. McClanahan CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LeANDRE McCLANAHAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
A138215
(Solano
County
Super. Ct.
No. FCR280314)
Defendant
LeAndre McClanahan appealed after he was placed on probation following his
conviction of one count of second degree
burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459,
460.)
determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We
find none and affirm.
McClanahan
was tried on one count of first degree
robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b)) and one count of second degree
burglary of an automobile (§§ 459, 460).
He admitted to tampering with a vehicle or its contents, a
lesser-included offense of burglary of an automobile, and the jury was
instructed on that offense. (Veh. Code,
§ 10852; People v. Mooney (1983)
145 Cal.App.3d 502, 505.) The jury
returned a verdict of guilty on the burglary count but deadlocked on the
robbery count. The court declared a
mistrial on the robbery count, and the People dismissed it.
The
evidence presented at McClanahan’s trial supports the burglary conviction. The consolidated information
charged that on or about October 25,
2012, McClanahan unlawfully entered a car, a black Mustang, the
doors of that car being locked, with the intent to “commit larceny and any
felony.†At trial, the Mustang’s owner
testified that on the night of October 25, she left the car locked in a mall
parking lot. A witness called the police
after he saw two men, one wearing jeans and a black sweatshirt and one wearing
blue basketball shorts and a beanie, checking the door handles on other
vehicles in the lot. The witness
observed the man wearing basketball shorts break the Mustang’s driver’s side
window, sit in the front seat, and open the trunk. Both men then searched the car’s trunk. The witness saw police detain the men as they
attempted to leave the scene.
McClanahan, who was wearing jeans and a black sweatshirt, was one of the
men detained.
In
addition, a police officer discovered blood on the inside of the Mustang’s
passenger door, which was open. Blood
and a Band-Aid wrapper were on the ground in front of the car. When arrested, McClanahan had a fresh cut
covered by a Band-Aid on his hand.
At
the sentencing hearing, the court denied McClanahan’s request to reduce his
conviction to a misdemeanor but indicated a willingness to reconsider if
McClanahan was “fully compliant with probation.†The court suspended imposition of a sentence
and placed McClanahan on formal probation for three years, subject to various
terms and conditions. He was also
ordered to pay restitution to the Mustang’s owner and several fines and fees.
There
are no meritorious issues to be argued
on appeal. McClanahan was represented by
counsel throughout the proceedings, substantial evidence supports his
conviction, and no error appears in the jury instructions or in the sentencing
proceedings. The probation order is
affirmed.
_________________________
Humes,
J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
specified.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
The People moved to consolidate four matters:
two against both McClanahan and a codefendant, one against McClanahan
only, and one against the codefendant only.
McClanahan opposed and moved to sever his matters from those of his
codefendant. The trial court
consolidated the two cases against both defendants and denied the motion to
sever, but determined that the cases against only one defendant would be tried
separately. Later, on the People’s
motion, the court severed McClanahan’s trial in the consolidated cases from the
codefendant’s.
