Opinion
E073973
08-19-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRAIG BENSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.No. FVI19001594) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bryan K. Stodghill, Judge. Affirmed. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Craig Benson was arrested for shoplifting two pairs of shoes from a department store in Victorville. In the course of his arrest, he scuffled with a San Bernardino County deputy sheriff who was attempting to handcuff him.
Defendant was charged by information with using threats and violence to prevent an executive officer from carrying out his duties and knowingly resisting the officer using force and violence in violation of Penal Code section 69 (count 1, a felony) and shoplifting of property with a value not exceeding $950 in violation of section 459.5 (count 2, a misdemeanor). The information also alleged that he had two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies, as well as two prison priors.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
A jury found defendant guilty of resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer in violation of section 148, a lesser included misdemeanor offense of the section 69 charge in count 1, and guilty of the count 2 charge of shoplifting. The court sentenced him to a 364-day term in the county jail as to count 1 and a concurrent 180-day term as to count 2. The court waived all fines and fees upon finding defendant had no ability to pay them, and it retained jurisdiction as to restitution. Defendant appealed, and this court appointed counsel to represent him.
DISCUSSION
Defendant's 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, summary of the facts, and one potential arguable issue: whether the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the People's untimely discovery of exculpatory evidence had denied the defense the opportunity to impeach the arresting officer's testimony given during the preliminary hearing. Counsel also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: McKINSTER
J. MILLER
J.