Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF138465, Bernard Schwartz, Judge.
Richard De La Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI, Acting P.J.
This is a second appeal by defendant and appellant Frank Torrez, Jr. Defendant was originally convicted of being an active participant in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)) and petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 484/666). Additionally, in a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had sustained one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). As a result, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 13 years 4 months in state prison. (People v. Torrez (November 30, 2009, E046611 [nonpub. opn.] (Torrez I).)
In his first appeal, defendant claimed there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for being an active participant in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)). (Torrez I, supra.) We agreed, reversed defendant’s conviction for being an active gang member, and remanded the matter for resentencing. (Ibid.)
On remand, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of seven years in state prison as follows: the middle term of two years for the petty theft with a prior conviction doubled to four years due to the prior strike, plus three consecutive one-year terms for the prior prison terms. Defendant appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
I
The factual background relating to the petty theft with a prior offense is taken from this court’s unpublished opinion in defendant’s prior appeal, case No. E046611. (Torrez I, supra.)
In July 2007, Jose and Angela Corona were renting a house from Graciella Gonzalez and her husband on Quarry Street in Corona. The Coronas lived in one of the Gonzalez’s rental houses located behind the Gonzalez house. At the time, Jose worked in a factory in the morning and as a gardener in the afternoon. He kept a lawn mower and a weed trimmer locked to a tree in the yard.
On July 14, 2007, Jose left for work around 4:00 a.m. About 10:00 a. m., Graciella was mowing the lawn in the front of her house when she noticed defendant sitting on a bicycle in front of the two houses. He appeared to be acting as a lookout. Graciella then saw defendant's cohort, Daniel Gutierrez, walking from the direction of the Corona house toward the street. Gutierrez was carrying the weed trimmer in one hand and holding onto a bicycle with the other hand. After Graciella told Angela what she had observed, Angela called the police.
Defendant was stopped by police a short time later while riding his bicycle near the Corona home. He initially denied knowledge of the theft of the weed trimmer. He then said that he had seen a male riding through an alleyway on a bicycle carrying a weed trimmer. After he was informed that he had been positively identified as being at the Corona house by Graciella, defendant changed his story and said that a friend named “Roger” took the weed trimmer because Jose had failed to pay him for it. After completing a field interview card, defendant was released.
Later that same day, about 4:30 p.m., while defendant and his friends were sitting on the curb near the house from which the weed trimmer had been stolen, Graciella identified defendant as the one who had acted as the lookout earlier that day and his confederate Gutierrez as the one who had actually taken Jose’s weed trimmer.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant 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 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant 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 independently reviewed the record for potential error. We have now completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: KING, J., MILLER, J.