Opinion
C082108 C082112
02-22-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HARRY CHARLES ALLER, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 62142251A and 62119627)
Appointed counsel for defendant Harry Charles Aller, Jr., asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
In case No. 62119627, defendant was convicted of, among other things, vandalism exceeding $10,000. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1).) In addition, he was found to have caused property damage exceeding $65,000. (§ 12022.6, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court placed defendant on probation for four years.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Two years later, in case No. 62142251A, defendant and another man broke into the attached garage of a home. The owner was away that night, but defendant and the other man triggered a motion camera and a neighbor called the police. Officers went inside the garage announcing their presence. When an officer saw defendant standing behind a toolbox, he told defendant to step out and show his hands, but defendant did not comply. Then, as two officers struggled to subdue the other man, defendant ran toward the street. An officer took defendant to the ground and had to tell defendant a couple of times to put his hands behind his back. After a few seconds, defendant complied. A jury convicted defendant of first degree burglary (§ 459) and misdemeanor resisting an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).
Two months later, the trial court held a contested probation revocation hearing in case No. 62119627. The trial court took judicial notice of the verdict in case No. 62142251A and found defendant in violation of probation in case No. 62119627.
At the sentencing hearing for case Nos. 62119627 and 62142251A, the trial court imposed a five-year aggregate term. In case No. 62142251A, the trial court imposed the middle term of four years for the first degree burglary and a concurrent six months for the misdemeanor resisting an officer. And in case No. 62119627, the trial court terminated probation and imposed eight months (one-third the middle term) for the vandalism and a four-month enhancement for causing more than $65,000 in property damage. In addition, the trial court awarded defendant 125 days of presentence credit (63 actual days and 62 conduct days) in case No. 62142251A and 237 days of credit (119 actual and 118 conduct) in case No. 62119627, and ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees. We consolidated the cases for oral argument and decision.
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
Having consolidating the cases, defendant's request in case C082112 that we take judicial notice of the record in case C082108 is denied as moot. And having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
ROBIE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
RENNER, J.