Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCS234257, Alvin E. Green, Jr., Judge.
NARES, Acting P. J.
A jury convicted Juan Bell of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484). Bell admitted a prior 1994 strike conviction for voluntary manslaughter (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12), and that he had served two prior prison terms (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The trial court struck the prior prison terms and sentenced Bell to prison for a total term of four years: the middle term of two years for the burglary, doubled for the prior strike conviction, with credit for time served for the petty theft count. Bell appeals. We affirm the judgment.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTS
On November 27, 2009, Bell went into a Sears store at a Chula Vista shopping mall with a bag. He put a pair of shoes in the bag. He then put a pair of boots under his arm and walked out of the store without paying for the items. A Sears loss prevention officer, who was watching Bell, followed him out of the store. The officer asked Bell about the boots. Bell first said they were his, but then admitted he took them. Bell then handed the loss prevention officer the bag and the pair of boots, said he was not going back to jail and ran out of the store. Police officers apprehended Bell as he ran from the mall. Officers found a piece of paper in Bell's wallet with a list of shoes, sizes and prices that matched the ones in Bell's possession. Bell admitted that he stole the boots and the shoes in the bag, and that he had done it before. He said he was stealing solely for survival because he was just "scraping by" financially.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error, as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in not granting drug treatment instead of incarceration under Proposition 36; (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the petty theft conviction; and (3) whether Bell's admission was properly obtained under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
We granted Bell permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Bell has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McINTYRE, J., O'ROURKE, J.