P. v. Torres
Filed 12/17/09 P. v. Torres CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENNETH GEORGE TORRES, Defendant and Appellant. | A124361 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-533531) |
Kenneth George Torres appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a).) The trial court, sitting without a jury, found true the allegations that appellant had served three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b).) The trial court imposed the midterm of two years on the substantive offense, and imposed an additional consecutive term for each of the three prior prison terms, for a total sentence of five years.
In March 2008, appellant walked into a jewelry store in Santa Rosa under the guise of looking for some rings. After the sales clerk gave appellant two rings to look at, he ran out of the store with the rings. The incident was caught on surveillance tape, which was played for the jury. A few days later, an undercover detective with the Santa Rosa Police Department received a call from Tracy A., a purported informant, who identified appellant as being involved in the jewelry store theft. After appellant was arrested, he explained that he took the rings to sell for drug money.
Appellant testified that he had met Tracy A. about a week before the theft, and she had set up the entire incident. According to appellant, Tracy A. knew the sales clerk, and the clerk had consented to the theft of the property. The sales clerk testified that she knew Tracy A., but she had never seen defendant before the incident; the clerk did not consent to the theft. Tracy A. was not listed as a witness for either side, and she did not testify at trial.
Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and conclude there are no arguable issues.
Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. Although the trial court granted the prosecutions motion to exclude any questioning about Tracy A.s informant status, appellant was not prevented from presenting evidence about Tracy A.s involvement. Indeed, the record is replete with references to Tracy A.s alleged involvement in the incident. There was no evidentiary error.
Judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P.J.
_________________________
Sepulveda, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
