Opinion
E067605
08-03-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHELDRICK ISIAH CLAY, Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Schuck, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FVI1501731) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Sheldrick Isiah Clay was charged by second amended information with kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)(1), count 1), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a), count 2), and second degree robbery (§ 211, count 3). The information also alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The court subsequently dismissed count 2. A jury found defendant not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 3. The court found true the prior strike and prior serious felony conviction allegations. It then sentenced defendant to the upper term of five years on count 3, doubled pursuant to the prior strike, plus a consecutive five-year term on the prior serious felony allegation, for a total of 15 years in state prison.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, in propria persona, "based on the sentence plus enhancement." We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2015, the victim was working as a sales representative at an AT&T store. In the afternoon, defendant came into the store and inquired about GoPhones. She answered his questions and went into the back room to check the inventory. The phones were stored in a safe there. She went back to inform him they were in stock. He asked what time the store closed and then left.
Defendant returned to the store about 15 minutes before it closed. He was talking on a cell phone as he entered the store. Defendant's cohort entered the store, asked a question, and left the store. About 15 seconds later, he came running back into the store with a gun in his hand. He told the victim to go to the back of the store. Defendant pulled out a gun, as well. Defendant's cohort pushed the victim with the gun toward the back of the store, and defendant walked next to her. They yelled at her to enter the code to unlock the storeroom door. Once they were inside the storeroom, they told her to get on the ground and close her eyes. They then told her to get up and unlock the safe. The victim opened the left side of the safe because it contained a phone with a tracking device. They told her to get back down on the ground and close her eyes again. Then they asked for the code for the other side of the safe. The victim screamed out the code, but the safe did not open, so they demanded that she get up and open it. She opened it and got back down on the floor. They took phones from the safe, then went through her purse and took some of her personal property. Defendant and his cohort ordered the victim to go into the bathroom and count to 10. They shut the door behind her and left the store. The victim took her cell phone out of her pocket and called 911.
A witness was going through a drive-thru at the shopping center where the AT&T store was located. He saw a man run out of the store with a sack full of items and get into a white Dodge Charger. He observed a second man carrying a box come out of the store and get into a red car. The witness had his girlfriend call 911.
A police officer responded to the call and went to the AT&T store. He contacted the victim, who was shaking and appeared terrified. He made sure no one else was in the store, and then talked to her about what happened.
Another officer received information about where the phone with the tracking device was, so he responded to the location where it was last tracked. At that location, he observed that the white Dodge Charger was involved in a traffic collision.
A police detective investigating the incident ran a records check on the two cars involved in the robbery and discovered that they were both rental cars. He searched the back seat of the white Charger and found numerous phones and devices, a BB gun, a receipt for the gun, clothing, and cash. The victim's checkbook was also found in the white Charger. Approximately 54 devices were taken from the AT&T store, and they were valued at $30,745. The police also found a 5-Hour Energy drink bottle in the red car and tested it for a DNA sample.
The victim identified defendant in a six-pack lineup, and he was arrested. The police collected a buccal swab from him. He was a match for the DNA sample taken from the 5-Hour Energy drink bottle.
Defendant was interviewed at the police station. He waived his Miranda rights and admitted to committing the robbery. He also wrote an apology letter to the victim.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. --------
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, 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 and one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced defendant to the upper term on the robbery conviction. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P.J. SLOUGH
J.