P. v. Durham
Filed 1/29/09 P. v. Durham CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIANO ALEXANDER DURHAM, Defendant and Appellant. | D053262 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD206183 & SCD212662) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Leo Valentine, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
In superior court case No. SCD206183, Tiano Alexander Durham entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, 211). In superior court case No. SCD212662, Durham entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of robbery and admitted allegations that he committed the offense for the benefit of a street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that a principal personally discharged a handgun (Pen. Code, 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)). The plea bargain called for a stipulated sentence of 14 years for both cases. At sentencing, the trial court struck the gang allegation and sentenced Durham to 14 years in prison.
FACTS
Case No. SCD206183
On April 18, 2007, Jesse Horn, a member of the Lincoln Park criminal street gang, robbed the F Street Bookstore. During the robbery, Horn wore a mask and batting gloves and was armed with a semiautomatic handgun. As Horn fled on foot, he dropped the gloves and a 9mm semiautomatic Glock handgun. DNA analysis showed that Horn's and Durham's DNA was in the gloves and on the gun.
During a search of Durham's residence, police found packaging for batting gloves. A gang expert opined that Durham was a member of the Lincoln Park gang.
During a police interview, Durham denied committing the robbery and said Horn was responsible. Durham, however, admitted that he was the "equipment manager" for some robberies; he did not specifically state that he provided anything for the F Street Bookstore robbery.
Case No. SCD212662
Following his arrest in case No. SCD206183, Durham admitted to police that he supplied Lincoln Park gang members with stolen cars, bags, beanies and gloves for an April 6, 2007, robbery of a Union Bank branch. During that robbery, four individuals wearing hooded clothing, gloves and masks and armed with semiautomatic weapons, robbed the bank of $215,443.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether the statutory limitation on the trial court's authority to dismiss the firearm allegation violated the separation of powers doctrine.
We granted Durham permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded.
Durham contests the accuracy of appellate counsel's brief because he claims that one of the individuals involved in the bank robbery was not a gang member. However, Durham does not dispute the gang membership of the other three bank robbers. In any event, the trial court struck the gang enhancement at sentencing. To the extent that Durham challenges his robbery convictions because he was not a perpetrator or principal, he ignores his role as an aider and abettor to the robberies by supplying equipment used by the perpetrators to commit the robberies. An individual who aids and abets the successful commission of a crime, knowing and sharing the perpetrator's criminal specific intent, is criminally liable for the target offense. (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547, 560.)
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by appellant's counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Durham on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
