P. v. Dille

 

 

 

Filed 8/29/14  P. v. Dille 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN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  This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.   ROBERT DANIEL DILLE,               Defendant and Appellant.

D065521         (Super. Ct. No. SCE334834)

 

            APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
San Diego County, Lantz Lewis, Judge. 
Affirmed.

            Sheila
O'Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            No
appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

            A
jury convicted Robert Daniel Dille of petty theft after a prior theft
conviction (Pen. Code,href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] § 484
& 666).   Dille thereafter admitted one
prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and one href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">serious/violent felony prior
conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). 


            The
court declined to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction, but did
strike the prison prior.  Dille was
sentenced to a determinate term of four years in prison. 

            Dille
filed a timely notice of appeal. 

            Appellate
counsel has filed a brief pursuant to >People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende) and Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders)
indicating she is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for
reversal on appeal.  We offered Dille the
opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

            At
about 3:40 in the morning of October 22, 2013, a person later
identified as Dille was seen looking into various parked cars and entering into
those where the door was not locked.

            When
Officer Melissa Calderon arrived at the scene she observed a person wearing a
black "hoodie" as described by the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">complaining witness.  Calderon saw the person look directly at her
and then turn and run away.  She chased
the person and apprehended him at a nearby 76 station.  The person seized was Dille. 

            A
search of the backpack Dille was wearing revealed a number of items later found
to have been stolen from one of the parked cars. 

            Dille
testified in his own behalf.  He said he
found the backpack in a dumpster shortly before he encountered the police.  He denied taking any items, denied running
from police, and denied jumping over any fences. 

DISCUSSION

            As
we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to >Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating she is unable to identify any
reasonably arguable issues for reversal and asks this court to review the
record for error.  Pursuant to >Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738,
counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues for
reversal on appeal:

            1.  Whether the trial court abused its discretion
in denying his motion to strike the serious/violent prior felony conviction (>People v. Superior Court (>Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497).

            2.  Whether the trial court abused its discretion
in denying Dille's request for the appointment of replacement counsel (>People v. Marsden (1970) 2
Cal.3d 118).

            We
have reviewed the entire record and have not been able to identify any
reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.  Competent counsel has represented Dille on
this appeal.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

                         BENKE,
Acting P. J.

 

 

                                McDONALD,
J.