From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Anguiano

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Mar 7, 2008
No. E042705 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ ANGUIANO, Defendant and Appellant. E042705 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division March 7, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Super. Ct.No. INF056021 Eugene Huseman, Judge. (Retired judge of the Santa Barbara Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)

Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RAMIREZ, P. J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A jury convicted defendant of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and found true the allegation that someone other than an accomplice was present in the residence at the time of the crime (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true an allegation that defendant had suffered a prior conviction for which he served a prison term. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to prison for the midterm of four years (the trial court concluding it was precluded by Cunningham from imposing the upper term) plus one year for the prior. He was denied credits because when he was arrested for this offense, a parole hold was placed on him.

Cunningham v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856].

FACTS

On October 12, 2006, defendant was a passenger in his truck, which was being driven by his friend. They entered a gated community behind a landscape truck and were looking for homes that had been left unlocked. Defendant entered the victim’s home, most likely through a bathroom window, while his friend waited in the truck, which was parked across the street from the home. The homeowner came home and noticed defendant’s friend in the truck, smoking. The homeowner stared at the man, who then started up the truck and began driving away. The homeowner parked her car in her garage, entered her house through the door connecting the garage to the house, and went into the kitchen. She saw defendant running out the back door and into her backyard. The homeowner ran out of the house, the way she had entered, and caught up with defendant in her driveway, where she confronted him. The homeowner talked to defendant, but he did not respond. She followed him for three minutes, at times from a distance of 10 inches and, at one point, poked him in his shoulder. Defendant began to run and a spatula-like devise fell from his pocket. Defendant doubled back and retrieved the devise before the homeowner had a chance to get it. Defendant’s truck was moving slowly toward the gate, as though waiting for defendant to catch up and hop in, which he eventually did. The gate did not open quickly enough for the departing driver of defendant’s truck, so he rammed it. At trial, the homeowner testified that there was no question that defendant was the person who she had seen leaving her house.

In the middle of her living room and at the side of the home, where she kept her trash cans, the homeowner found, in piles, computer parts and electronics that had been removed from their places in her home. Things had been disturbed in her bedroom. She never recovered an electronic game and her daughter’s jewelry, which had been taken that day.

Soon after the crime, a police investigator, who had dealt with defendant previously on another theft case and was familiar with defendant’s truck, surmised that defendant was involved. He drove by defendant’s house periodically to see if his truck was there and did not see the truck until the following day. The investigator then followed defendant in his truck and pulled him over for equipment violations. The investigator asked defendant what was going on and defendant said, “Yeah, I know.” The investigator asked defendant if he was involved in the burglary and defendant said that he and his friend were there. Defendant added that he did not want to return to prison, he did not want any trouble, and he would pay the victim back for whatever was missing. The investigator then read defendant his Miranda rights and defendant agreed to speak to him. Defendant admitted entering the house, and taking a gold chain and an electronic game, while his friend waited in the truck outside. Defendant admitted giving the gold chain and electronic game to his friend to sell.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

During argument to the jury, defense counsel conceded that defendant was guilty of first degree burglary. However, he argued that the evidence did not establish that defendant was in the house while the homeowner was because she had told police immediately after the crimes that defendant was standing in her backyard when she first saw him.

Defendant’s Contention

In his personal supplemental brief of a little over one page, defendant points out that a police officer he had called to the stand at trial testified that the homeowner had not told him that she saw defendant inside her home. However, this matter was thoroughly explored by defense counsel during the testimony of the homeowner and that officer. As already stated, during his argument to the jury, defense counsel emphasized this, asserting that it compelled a “not true” finding on the allegation that someone other than an accomplice was present in the home at the time of the burglary. The jury apparently rejected this theory in making a true finding as to the allegation, which finding was supported by substantial evidence.

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, 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 defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which we have read and considered.

We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The trial court is directed to add to the minute order for the sentencing hearing and the abstract of judgment the fact that defendant is entitled to no presentence custody credits, and to note in the minutes that this is due to the parole hold. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur: McKINSTER, J., GAUT, J.


Summaries of

People v. Anguiano

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
Mar 7, 2008
No. E042705 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Anguiano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ ANGUIANO…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

Date published: Mar 7, 2008

Citations

No. E042705 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2008)