Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD197447, David J. Danielsen, Judge.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
David Ladd pleaded guilty to four counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460), four counts of burglary (§ 459), one count of grand theft by using an access card (§ 484g, subd. (a)), and four counts of petty theft by using an access card with a prior (§§ 484g, subd. (a), 666). Ladd also admitted that in two of the four counts of residential burglary a person was present in the residence during the commission of the offense within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c)(21). At the time of the change of plea hearing, the trial court indicated it would not sentence Ladd to more than 10 years in prison.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an eight-year prison term as follows: the middle term of four years for the first residential burglary plus consecutive 16-month (one-third the middle term of four years) terms for each of the other residential burglaries. The court imposed concurrent terms of two years each for the other burglaries and stayed the sentences on the remaining theft charges pursuant to section 654.
Ladd's request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
FACTS
Ladd's crimes were committed during the first three months of 2006. During this period, Ladd burglarized four residences; in two of these instances, one or more individuals were present during the burglary. Among other things, Ladd took purses, numerous credit cards, and a laptop computer. Ladd also committed four commercial burglaries in La Jolla during this period by using stolen credit cards to purchase $110 worth of gift cards at a Starbucks, $105 worth of gift cards at a Bruegger's Bagels, and $623 worth of shoes (three pairs) at Rangoni Shoes in La Jolla; at the fourth burglary site—the Banana Republic store—the stolen credit card was declined.
On March 6 police contacted Ladd while he was sleeping in his vehicle in Pacific Beach. When police ran the license plate of the vehicle, they learned that Ladd had been positively identified as a suspect in a series of residential burglaries, and arrested him.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Ladd was properly advised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of pleading guilty; and (2) whether the trial court properly imposed 15 percent credit per section 2933.1 for the entire eight-year sentence even though only two of the counts qualified as violent felonies—the two residential burglaries in which people were present.
We granted Ladd permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has filed a supplemental brief.
Ladd contends the probation report prepared in the instant case was incomplete and inaccurate. First, Ladd takes issue with the following statement in the probation report: "Moreover, he failed to remain law-abiding as evidenced by his subsequent felony conviction in case SCD136456. Yet, after serving time on his violations of probation, the defendant's probation in case SCD117746 was allowed to expire [in] normal course in 2001." Ladd maintains the last sentence of the excerpt is incorrect; he states "Probation for case SCD117746 was revoked due to case SCD136456 on 4/18/1998. The period of incarceration was not due to probation violations. It was due to a guilty plea for possession of a controlled substance stemming from case SCD136456." However, it is a standard term of probation to obey all laws. By reoffending, Ladd violated his probation. The probation report shows that in 1996 in case No. SCD117746, Ladd pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance for sale and received five years of probation. The probation in case No. SCD117746 was revoked and reinstated numerous times in 1998. Thus, Ladd has failed to show that the above quoted excerpt from the probation report is inaccurate.
Next, Ladd challenges the following statement in the probation report: "The defendant has demonstrated an inability of succeeding in the community despite structured supervision." Ladd points out that he fulfilled all requirements of his probation in case SCD136456, completing a six-month outpatient drug treatment program and a 52-week domestic violence course, and had clean drug tests for one year. Assuming that Ladd can substantiate his claim of a successful probation in case SCD136456, the probation report shows that his probation was revoked in case No. SCE178075 and case No. M920487DV.
Ladd also disputes the portion of the probation report that states he pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon in case No. SCE178075. Ladd claims that he pleaded guilty to vandalism, not assault. However, on this record there is nothing to substantiate Ladd's assertion.
According to Ladd, the probation report also erroneously stated that he smoked methamphetamines when he was in grade school. Even if the probation officer incorrectly related Ladd's drug history, there is no showing this was prejudicial.
In his supplemental brief, Ladd also argues that the court was misled by misinformation in the probation report and his attorney's statement in mitigation, and improperly considered the level of his numerous prior convictions in imposing sentence. On this record, Ladd has not shown prejudice. He had numerous convictions, including two assaults.
It appears counsel's statement in mitigation erroneously referred to a burglary conviction in case No. SCE178075. The probation report shows in that case, Ladd pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and the burglary count was dismissed.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel and the points raised by Ladd, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Ladd on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J., HALLER, J.