Filed 6/4/18 P. v. Trimble CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel W. Detienne, Judge. Affirmed.

William P. Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Arthur Lee Trimble was charged with second degree burglary of a closed business. (Pen. Code,[1] § 459, count 1.) It was also alleged that he had served four prior prison terms. A jury found defendant guilty of count 1. Pursuant to a negotiated sentence, he admitted the four prison priors, and the court sentenced him to a total of five years in county jail, with 188 days of custody credits.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At approximately 3:45 a.m. on February 26, 2017, police officers responded to a burglary alarm at a coffee shop. Upon arrival, one officer observed several pry marks on the front door, but the door was locked. The officers announced their presence and knocked on the doors and windows. There was no response. They waited approximately 30 minutes for an employee to arrive with the key. The officers opened the front door with the key and entered the store. They searched the lobby area and the restrooms, but no one was there. They went through a swinging door to the back office and saw defendant sitting at a desk. He was wearing black gloves, and he had a backpack next to him, at his feet. The backpack contained tools, including a crowbar, screwdriver, hammer, wrench, and extension cord, as well as a can of WD-40 lubricant. Next to the backpack, there was a security safe box, which contained employee files. The lock on the box had been broken off, and the box was open. There were old safe keys and keys to the registers spread out on the desk. Nothing appeared to be missing from the store. However, the wires from the video surveillance system had been pulled out of the camera system.

At trial, a police officer testified that the tools found in the backpack were commonly used for burglaries.

DISCUSSION

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by permitted the prosecution to argue alternate theories of burglary (e.g., defendant formed the intent to commit larceny before he entered the coffee shop or, in the alternative, while he was inside the coffee shop, but before he entered the back office); (2) whether the court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree that defendant committed the same specific act; (3) whether the court deprived defendant of competent counsel by sustaining objections to defense counsel’s questions to the police officer regarding defendant’s homelessness; and (4) whether the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors based on race, in violation of defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

SLOUGH

J.