Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD207188 Michael D. Wellington, Judge.
HALLER, J.
Vandez Smith was charged in an information with one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), two counts of burglary (§ 459), two counts of petty theft of retail merchandise with a prior theft alleged (§§ 484, 490.5, 666), and one count of misdemeanor resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). The information further alleged seven prison priors (§§ 1203, subd. (e)(4) and 675, subd. (b)). A jury found Smith guilty of all counts, except count 1, the robbery charge. Outside the presence of the jury, Smith admitted the petty theft prior allegations; he later admitted the seven prison priors and the court found them to be true. The court sentenced him to prison for five years and eight months.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
On June 2, 2007, Josiah Hortega, an asset protection assistant manager for Target store, observed Smith on a closed circuit video monitor in his office. He first noticed Smith in the electronics department where he saw Smith grab a digital camera worth about $99.99 from a shelf without looking at the price and then walk to a nearby aisle where he ripped the package open, removed the camera, threw the package behind the DVD players and then concealed the camera in the front of his hooded sweatshirt. Smith walked through several aisles, made his way to the front of the store and exited without paying for the camera. Hortega ran out the exit and made eye contact with Smith who then bolted, running across the parking lot. Hortega gave chase, but was unable to catch Smith. Inside the store, Hortega found the discarded empty package. While inside the store, Smith did not have a shopping cart or basket. Except for a split second, Hortega never lost visual contact with Smith.
Ten days later, on June 12, 2007, Hortega was in his office with a uniformed security guard employed by Target; Scott James, a San Diego police officer who was at the store regarding an unrelated shoplifting incident; and Maria Rodriguez, a Target employee who works in an undercover capacity to spot shoplifters. Hortega once again noticed Smith on the monitor. Hortega saw Smith in the electronics department select a CD player worth about $29.99, conceal it in the waistband in the front of his pants, walk around a path similar to the one he took on June 2 and then exit the store.
Rodriguez and the uniformed security guard stopped Smith outside the store and identified themselves as Target security. Smith denied Rodriguez's claim that he had failed to pay for merchandise. When the uniform security officer patted Smith's stomach and referred to "this," Smith pushed Rodriguez into the security officer and then took off running.
James, who was nearby in his police car, pursued Smith as he ran through the parking lot. On two occasions he pulled up alongside Smith and told him to stop. Smith kept running. Eventually James caught up with him and ordered him to the ground. Smith ignored that command; he later complied when the officer drew his gun and again told Smith to get on the ground.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in 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 there is sufficient evidence of burglary, theft and resisting arrest and (2) whether a mistrial was necessary because a juror saw Smith in civilian clothing and waist chains as he was being transported inside the courthouse by the trial court's bailiff.
We granted Smith permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
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, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Smith on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, A.P.J., IRION, J.