P. v. Homan
Filed 12/3/08 P. v. Homan CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ALLEN HOMAN, JR., Defendant and Appellant. | C058469 (Super. Ct. No. CM028371) |
Deputies from the Butte County Sheriffs Department were summoned to the home of a juvenile, Chris T., after the juveniles father found him in possession of stolen property. Chris eventually told deputies he obtained the stolen property from defendant, David Allen Homan, Jr.,[1]after defendant told Chris he acquired the property from a house he had burglarized. Deputies contacted the victim, who confirmed the property in Chriss possession was indeed the property that had been stolen from the victim.
Deputies detained defendant at his home, where they conducted a parole search. Defendant initially denied any involvement in the crime; however, when deputies informed him they found his fingerprints at the scene of the burglary, defendant said, I was there. Defendant told deputies he had been contacted by Chris, who told him he was going to burglarize a home. Defendant went with Chris to the home and, once Chris gained access through the bathroom window, entered the home and looked around. Defendant said he then decided not to steal anything and left, but was later contacted again by Chris and asked to help remove property from the home. Defendant and Chris took three loads of property from the home and stored them in defendants room.
Defendant entered a plea of no contest to first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459) in exchange for dismissal of a prior prison term allegation with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Not finding the case to be unusual for purposes of Penal Code section 462, subdivision (a), the court denied probation, sentenced defendant to the upper term of six years, minus applicable presentence custody credits, and imposed specified fees and fines. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P. J.
DAVIS , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Defendant was on parole at the time of the incident.
