From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morgan

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 18, 2011
No. D056494 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2011)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL GREEN MORGAN, Defendant and Appellant. D056494 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division January 18, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD22185, Stephanie Sontag, Judge.

HUFFMAN, J.

Carl Green Morgan appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of possession of methamphetamine (meth) and several related misdemeanors. This appeal is reviewed by this court in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2009, Ricardo Caballero, an employee of an apartment complex in the Mission Valley area of San Diego, observed Morgan go into a storage area of the apartment complex and come out with a backpack. Caballero reported his observation to his supervisor, Douglas Gardner.

On August 5, 2009, Gardner and Caballero again encountered Morgan at the complex and ordered him to leave. After another encounter Morgan left and walked across the street toward a shopping mall. Gardner and Caballero followed him and called police.

Police officers saw Morgan in the shopping mall and ordered him to stop. One officer pointed a taser at Morgan and the other officer drew his baton. Morgan raised his hands at that point. A search of Morgan produced a glasses case with syringes and nine bindles of meth. Police found a wallet with $618 in cash on Morgan's person. They also found various tools, which were ultimately found to be burglary tools, in Morgan's possession. Morgan appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance.

Police obtained a number of statements from Morgan at the scene and in the police car. The trial court suppressed those statements made after Morgan invoked his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (l966) 384 U.S. 436). The court did allow some of the statements to be used for impeachment.

Morgan testified in his own defense. He acknowledged staying in a storage room at the apartment complex. Morgan testified that two friends were using the room with him when he realized Gardner and Caballero were outside. He said he put on the other person's shorts and collected his belongings and went outside. Morgan denied that the wallet and cash were his and denied knowledge of the glasses case in the pocket of the shorts. Morgan also offered explanations for the various tools found in his backpack. He admitted suffering a previous felony conviction.

Morgan waived his right to jury trial on the alleged prison priors and the strike prior and admitted the alleged priors. The jury convicted Morgan of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and three related misdemeanors.

At sentencing the trial court declined to strike the "strike" prior but did strike the prison priors. Morgan was sentenced to the lower term of 16 months for possession of a controlled substance, doubled to 32 months because of the strike prior.

Morgan's appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating that he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), the brief identifies several possible, but not arguable issues. Those issues are (1) whether the statements made by Morgan to police after arrest were properly admitted for impeachment purposes; (2) whether the statements made by Morgan were coerced so that they should not have been allowed for impeachment; (3) assuming that the statements were improperly used for impeachment whether he was prejudiced by such evidence; (4) whether Morgan was properly impeached by his prior felony conviction for residential burglary; and (5) whether the court abused its discretion in declining to strike the "strike" prior.

This court invited Morgan to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not respond.

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende and Anders and not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Morgan on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. IRION, J.


Summaries of

People v. Morgan

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Jan 18, 2011
No. D056494 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2011)
Case details for

People v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL GREEN MORGAN, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Jan 18, 2011

Citations

No. D056494 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2011)