P. v. Perry
Filed 12/2/09 P. v. Perry CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PATRICK RAY PERRY, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B215726 (Super. Ct. No. MA 043964) (Los Angeles County) |
Patrick Ray Perry appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree commercial burglary. (Pen. Code, 459.)[1] Appellant admitted a prior prison term enhancement ( 667.5, subd. (b)) and was sentenced to the low term of 16 months state prison plus one year on the enhancement. The trial court ordered appellant to pay a $400 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $400 parole revocation fine ( 1202.45), a $20 court security fee ( 1465.8), and a $10 crime prevention fine ( 1202.5).
The trial evidence showed that appellant and Kevin Phillips walked into a T-Mobile Store in Palmdale to commit a theft. Phillips purchased a pre-activated $10 Sim card for a Sidekick phone as appellant looked at a Sidekick phone on display. The sales clerk was suspicious because Phillips did not have a T-Mobile phone and Sidekick display phones are the most commonly shoplifted item. Phillips diverted the attention of the sales clerk while appellant took the Sidekick phone on display.
The store manager discovered the theft, called the Sim-card phone number purchased by Phillips, and said the store would not prosecute if the phone was brought back. Within 10 minutes of the call, appellant returned the stolen Sidekick phone and apologized.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On September 23, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
We concur:
COFFEE, J.
PERREN, J.
Brian C. Yep, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Mark Anchor Albert, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
