Opinion
D081923
01-29-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONARD ALJOE, Defendant and Appellant.
Lisa A. Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCE414079, Selena D. Epley, Judge. Affirmed.
Lisa A. Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CASTILLO, J.
A jury convicted Leonard Aljoe of indecent exposure. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) indicating she did not identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to review the record for error as required by Wende. We offered Aljoe the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, and he has not done so.
Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We thus affirm.
I.
The People charged Aljoe with indecent exposure for publicly masturbating in a store parking lot in September 2022. That afternoon, the store manager learned of two customer complaints that "somebody was outside exposing themselves." When the manager went outside to investigate, she saw Aljoe sitting by a car, facing the store entrance, and masturbating with his penis exposed.
The People sought to introduce evidence at trial of prior incidents of Aljoe publicly masturbating under Evidence Code section 1108. In April 2021, Aljoe approached the front office of an elementary school. No children were present, but a school clerk saw Aljoe "grabbing" his exposed penis, "moving it around, and talking at the same time." Later that same morning, a woman in a vehicle with her children saw Aljoe masturbating near an apartment complex. When she tried to get his attention to stop him, Aljoe continued masturbating and eventually approached the woman and her children while making "sexual comments" about her.
Defense counsel opposed this prior incident evidence, arguing it would create a substantial danger of undue prejudice under Evidence Code section 352 because the "egregious nature" of the April 2021 conduct would "only inflame the emotions of the jury." The trial court permitted the prior incident evidence because the People mitigated the "potential undue prejudice" by (1) confirming that no children witnessed the event at the school and (2) agreeing to admonish the other witness not to mention that her children were present when she saw Aljoe masturbating. At trial, the witness complied and did not mention her children.
A jury convicted Aljoe of indecent exposure under Penal Code section 314, subdivision (1). Aljoe also admitted to a prior strike and a prior conviction for violating Penal Code section 314, subdivision (1).
The trial court sentenced Aljoe to a total of four years in state prison.
II.
Aljoe's counsel filed a Wende brief setting forth a statement of the case and facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review under Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at pp. 744-745, counsel identified the following issues she considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
(1) Should the April 2021 prior incidents have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative?
(2) If the trial court erred in admitting the prior incidents under Evidence Code section 1108, was that error prejudicial?
We reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Aljoe on this appeal.
III.
We affirm the judgment.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P.J., KELETY, J.