P. v. Washington
Defendant and appellant William N. Washington (defendant) appeals from the denial of his postjudgment motion for the return of property. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues and requesting a court review of the record. On December 24, 2012, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We have reviewed the entire record and finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
After defendant was convicted of residential burglary, identity theft, commercial burglary and possession of a forged driver’s license, he filed a motion for the return of some of the property seized during a search of defendant’s motel room pursuant to a search warrant executed in 2006. The seized property included credit, debit, and identification cards, a savings ledger, a checkbook, and a wallet, all bearing names other than defendant’s. Other property seized included electronic devices such as a Blackberry, cell phone, a computer, computer parts and accessories, as well as a tool set, keys, documents, and a plastic container.
Some of the subject property had been reported stolen and had been admitted into evidence in defendant’s trial. A Blackberry cell phone was reported stolen later, prior to the hearing on the motion. Some of the property, including cash, a laptop computer, computer parts and accessories, a camera, and a car stereo, had not been reported stolen. However, the wires to the car stereo had been cut, and some of the items (a laptop computer, iPod and speakers) appeared to match a description of some property missing after a burglary to which defendant had confessed committing.
Comments on P. v. Washington