Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 06WF2817, David A. Hoffer, Judge.
Richard de la Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
Ryan Anthony Price was convicted by jury of attempted premeditated murder in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 187, first-degree residential burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459, and first-degree robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. In addition, the jury found it true that appellant used a deadly weapon and personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim in committing the attempted murder (but not the robbery). The allegation that a non-accomplice was present during the burglary was found to be true. He was sentenced to a life term on the attempted murder, as well as a three-year term for the great bodily injury allegation and one-year terms for the use of a deadly weapon and a prior felony conviction.
He appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth, in some detail, the facts of the case and points counsel had considered as possible appellate issues. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court he could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. Appellant was given 30 days to file written argument in appellant’s own behalf. That period passed, and we received no communication from appellant.
We examined the record ourselves to see if we could find any arguable issue and found no putative error in the determination of Price’s guilt. We find ourselves in agreement with appellate counsel that there are no appellate issues with a reasonable prospect of success with respect to Price’s guilt or the judgment imposed upon him.
FACTS
Appellate counsel did an admirable job of collecting the facts of the case in analyzing his possible arguments. Since we have found no significant errors or omissions in his recitation of those facts, we adopt that statement of facts for consideration of the case:
“The prosecution case may be summarized as follows. On October 26, 2006, Quan Nguyen was 27 and lived with his parents and grandmother at 14341 Middletown Lane in Westminster. At that time, Mr. Nguyen smoked methamphetamine ‘maybe three times’ a week, and had been using it since 1999 or 2000.
“‘Less than a week’ before October 26, Mr. Nguyen went to a nearby doughnut shop to try to buy methamphetamine. Mr. Nguyen saw appellant and Robert Lee Preston (who was known as ‘Nazi’) at the doughnut shop. He had never seen them before, but they looked like they might be ‘tweakers,’ or amphetamine users, so he asked them if he could buy amphetamine from them. Appellant sold Mr. Nguyen a $20.00 quantity of methamphetamine.
“A day or two later, Mr. Nguyen contacted appellant and purchased another $20.00 quantity of methamphetamine from him. Appellant brought the drugs to Mr. Nguyen’s residence and the two of them smoked it together.
“On October 26, 2006, at about 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., Mr. Nguyen was at home watching a movie. His parents were out of the country on vacation, and his grandmother was in her room sleeping. There was a knock at the door, and Mr. Nguyen found appellant and Mr. Preston there. Mr. Nguyen told them they couldn’t come in, but Preston put a knife to Mr. Nguyen’s throat and appellant and Preston forced their way in.
“Mr. Nguyen was forced into the garage, where Preston told appellant to tie Mr. Nguyen with electrical cord, which he did. Mr. Nguyen was threatened with death. He thought he was going to be killed and was ‘really scared.’
“Mr. Nguyen told appellant and Mr. Preston where there was some cash, and appellant and Preston took turns going into the house and staying with Mr. Nguyen. Just before leaving, appellant and Preston came into the garage wearing backpacks that looked full. One of the backpacks belonged to Mr. Nguyen, and one belonged to his mother.
“As they were about to leave, appellant said, ‘I’m going to stab him first.’ Preston demurred, but eventually said, ‘Okay. Let’s do it.’ Appellant stabbed Mr. Nguyen in the throat and Preston cut him on the arm. Mr. Nguyen knew appellant stabbed him in the throat because appellant was in front of him and Preston was behind him.
“After appellant and Preston left, Mr. Nguyen freed himself and went into the house. He tried to call ‘911’ but most of the phones had been damaged. He found a working phone in the kitchen and was able to call for help. He was taken to the hospital and spent approximately four days there.
“Mr. Nguyen’s room and his parents’ bedroom were ransacked and jewelry, checkbooks, and a laptop computer were taken. The stab wound to Mr. Nguyen’s throat punctured his trachea. There was also a laceration to the side of Mr. Nguyen’s neck that had to be sutured.
“Appellant was arrested on November 2, 2006. At the time he was arrested, appellant attempted to ‘discard’ a pocketknife.
“The defense case may be summarized as follows. The detective who interviewed Mr. Nguyen in the hospital testified that Mr. Nguyen’s statement with respect to who stabbed him was, ‘That’s what I don’t understand. I never saw [appellant] with a knife, even when – when [he] stabbed me, I didn’t see the knife [he] used.’
“The knife that appellant attempted to discard at the time he was arrested did not have blood on it.”
DISCUSSION
Of course, the first thing counsel – and we – considered was the sufficiency of the evidence to support appellant’s conviction. Any appeal starts with the question of whether there was substantial evidence, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which the trier of fact could have inferred appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here there was. It is axiomatic that the testimony of even one witness – if believed by the trier of fact and not inherently improbable – is sufficient to support a conviction. In this case, appellant’s victim knew him before the crime, so identity was never an issue, and his attempt to discard a knife could well have been regarded by the jury as an act evincing consciousness of guilt. The evidence supports the conviction.
We have reviewed the instructions and can find no infirmity in them. Nor can we find error in the trial court’s discretionary call to exclude proof of codefendant Robert Lee Preston’s prior bad acts.
The sentence was largely one of statutory mandate and was computed according to California law and Rules of Court. The trial court was correct that while Penal Code section 654 barred separate sentences for the robbery and burglary, it did not mean that a sentence for neither of them could be imposed in addition to the attempted murder sentence. The trial court could reasonably have concluded the burglary was carried out in order to facilitate the robbery, but that the attempted murder was, as he put it, “a separate matter” from either of them. The record certainly supports that conclusion.
Nor can we find any other arguable error in the record. We have closely reviewed the court file in all its particulars and have satisfied ourselves there is no
appellate issue that would undermine this conviction or the sentence imposed for it. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J., FYBEL, J.