Opinion
E069443
06-11-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRAVON ANDRE BRITT, Defendant and Appellant.
John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FWV17002541) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson Uhler, Judge. Affirmed. John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Travon Andre Britt entered a bank and attempted to withdraw $4,650 from his bank account that were proceeds of a check that had been forged or altered. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of attempted grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 664/487, subd. (a); count 1) and second degree burglary (§ 459; count 2). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. --------
After the trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction, defendant was sentenced to a total term of seven years in state prison with 272 days of credit for time served as follows: the middle term of two years on count 2, doubled to four years due to the prior strike conviction, plus one year each for three of the prior prison terms; count 1 was stayed pursuant to section 654. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2017, at approximately 9:40 a.m., defendant entered a Wells Fargo Bank located in Fontana, California, and approached a bank teller. The bank teller observed that defendant was acting strangely and fidgeting with his pants. He asked to use the restroom and she directed him to a nearby business with a public restroom. Approximately several minutes later, defendant returned and told her that he wanted to withdraw $4,650 from his account. He provided her with a withdrawal slip upon which she placed his account number. Defendant also provided her with his identification. Defendant filled in his name on the withdrawal slip but did not sign the slip.
The bank teller noticed from her computer records that defendant's account had been opened with a small deposit only a couple of weeks prior and that a large check had recently been deposited. The bank teller sought approval for the withdrawal from her manager because defendant was acting strangely, and because of the withdrawal amount from a relatively new account. The bank teller informed defendant that she needed approval from her manager and defendant sat down in the lobby for a few minutes while she obtained that approval.
The bank teller asked the Wells Fargo service manager to look into defendant's withdrawal because of the amount of the withdrawal and because she did not feel comfortable with the transaction. The service manager first saw defendant when he walked into the bank branch, asked to use the restroom, and then walked out. When he returned, she observed him fixing his pants and fidgeting. She also noticed that the teller appeared uneasy. When the service manager pulled up defendant's account information on her computer, she saw that his account was new and that there had been a large deposit made a couple of days previously at a Wells Fargo branch in the city of Escondido. She also noted that the account was initially opened with a small cash deposit followed by a large check.
The service manager did not know who was responsible for the large deposit into defendant's account, but she was able to pull up an image of the check. That check was drawn on the account of another Wells Fargo customer, the Los Angeles Housing Partnership (LAHP). That deposit was made on June 19, 2017, in the amount of $4,850. The check was written to Travon Britt. The check was drawn on an account from Los Angeles. The service manager reviewed the account records of the LAHP and noticed that the account on which the check was drawn typically contained payments to businesses, not to individuals. She then called the contact person, the staff accountant, for the LAHP to verify the check. The LAHP staff accountant informed the bank service manager that the check presented by defendant, check No. 9206, was not issued to defendant but was issued to a business, Parker Consulting, in the amount of $350. The staff accountant had mailed the check to Parker Consulting on June 13, 2017. However, Parker Consulting, who had been expecting a payment check in early June 2017 from the LAHP, did not receive that payment, and a missing payment notice was sent out to the LAHP.
After speaking with the LAHP staff accountant, the bank service manager called the Fontana Police Department informing them that she had a customer trying to pass a fraudulent item. Fontana Police Department Officer Guerrero arrived at the bank in response to the service manager's call. When Officer Guerrero arrived, he saw defendant seated in the lobby and detained him in the back of his patrol car. The officer returned to the bank where he was provided a copy of the fraudulent check that had been deposited in Escondido, as well as the deposit slip for the $60 deposited when the account was originally opened. After speaking with representatives from the LAHP and Parker Consulting, Officer Guerrero determined the check had been altered.
A week earlier, on June 13, 2017, a personal registered banker had assisted defendant in opening a bank account with Wells Fargo in the city of San Bernardino. While the banker could not later identify defendant in court, defendant had provided him with a driver's license and Social Security card when the account was opened. The account was opened with a cash deposit of $60.
On June 27, 2017, Fontana Police Department Detective Slusser contacted the Wells Fargo branch in Escondido, where the large check drawn on the LAHP had been deposited. He obtained copies from the bank's security system of photographs showing the person who had deposited the check into defendant's account. The check was deposited by a woman, and she had not provided identification to the bank at the time of the deposit.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. FIELDS
J.