Opinion
C088928
06-17-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RASHAUD JOSEPH GRANDERSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 18FE008240)
Appointed counsel for defendant Rashaud Joseph Granderson asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
In March 2018, someone broke into A.M.'s home while she was out. When A.M. returned and went to open her front door, a man emerged from the house and walked away. A.M. discovered that several items of personal property were missing from the home. A latent fingerprint found inside the bedroom window matched defendant's fingerprint.
The next month, defendant tried to break into the home of I.D. I.D. called the police and reported that a man came into his backyard through a gate and shook the handle of the back door. Defendant fled when police responded to the scene, but he was detained a short time later. During a field show-up, I.D. identified defendant as the man who tried to break into his house.
A jury found defendant guilty of the first degree residential burglary of A.M. (Pen. Code, § 459 -- count one) and the attempted first degree residential burglary of I.D. (§§ 664, 459 -- count two), and found true an allegation that he had a prior serious felony conviction for criminal threats, which constituted a prior strike (§§ 422, 667, subds. (a)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court denied defendant's Romero motion and sentenced him to an aggregate 14 years four months in state prison, consisting of the following: the middle term of four years for the burglary of A.M., doubled to eight years for the prior strike, plus a consecutive eight months (one third the midterm) for the attempted burglary of I.D., doubled to 16 months, plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). Defendant was sentenced after the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1393, which gave the trial court discretion to dismiss the five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancement.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. --------
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
MAURO, Acting P. J. We concur: /S/_________
DUARTE, J. /S/_________
RENNER, J.