Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF152588. James T. Warren, Judge.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P.J.
Defendant Jeffery Lamont Priestly appeals from his conviction after a guilty plea—along with his nine-year prison sentence—on two counts of burglary and two counts of attempted burglary. As discussed below, we affirm the judgment.
The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing.
On September 9, 2009, Sheriff’s deputies responded to several calls within a few blocks of each other. One woman said she saw two black adult males knocking on the sliding glass doors at the rear of her home. The men told her they had been shot at and needed a place to hide. When the woman told them she was going to call the police, they left and jumped over the neighbor’s fence.
A call came in from a second home about one block east of the first home. Two men matching the above description had kicked in two doors to the home and were observed running out of the home to the east.
The resident of a third nearby home flagged down a responding deputy. The resident stated that she was inside her home when someone knocked on the garage door. The resident opened the door and saw a black male holding a white dog and speaking to her in English. The resident did not understand English, but became frightened and closed the garage door. When the resident opened the garage door a few minutes later, she noticed a pair of gray sweatpants lying on the garage floor about two feet from the door. The sweatpants did not belong to anyone in her household. Inside the sweatpants, the responding deputy found a blue latex glove, a blue cap and a pack of cigarettes.
Priestly was detained after two neighbors told deputies they had just seen two black males running past, one wearing gray sweatpants and a white shirt. One of the neighbors identified Priestly during an in-field identification, and recognized the gray sweatpants as those Priestly had been wearing when he ran by.
Priestly initially told the deputies that he and another man were running from some gang members and hid in a trash can in a residential area. He had picked up the white dog as they ran to give to his girlfriend. Later, defendant told the deputy that he and the other man were looking for mountain bikes to sell. He admitted to going into the back yards of homes and said that the other man was the one who had kicked in the doors. He admitted to taking off his sweatpants inside a garage to change his appearance.
On January 12, 2010, Priestly plead guilty to two counts of attempted residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 459) and two counts of residential burglary (§ 459). He also admitted to having committed a prior strike felony (§§ 667, subds. (c) and (e)(1) and 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)), and to having six prior prison term offenses (§ 667.5).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
On March 24, 2010, Priestly moved to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion on March 29. On April 15, 2010, the trial court sentenced Priestly to nine years in prison as follows: the low term of two years for the principal burglary count, doubled to four for the prior strike, plus five years for the section 667, subdivision (a) enhancement. The trial court struck the six prior prison term offenses and sentences on all other charges were to be consecutive. This appeal followed.
Discussion
After Priestly 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, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered Priestly an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. 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.
We concur: KING J., MILLER J.