Opinion
A152155
06-21-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY CASAVANT, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR324122)
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Timothy Casavant of residential burglary. Appellant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 5, 2016, Vacaville resident Walter Riley woke up during the night and saw a light flashing around in the side yard next door. He went outside and saw a person with a flashlight, and he called the police. Two police officers arrived 10-15 minutes later.
Vacaville police officer Andrew Shaw arrived with another officer around 4:00 a.m. He saw a person inside the house wearing a headlamp and gloves. The officers detained appellant after he exited through the front door. When the police entered the house, they found items stacked next to the front door, including a flat-screen television, a portable speaker, and a backpack containing a camera, a laptop, jewelry, a checkbook, personal documents belonging to the homeowner, and a revolver. A sliding glass door and rear windows to the house were open. There were no signs of forced entry.
The homeowner, Christine Nickles, was out of town for work on the day of appellant's arrest. She did not know appellant and he did not have permission to be in her house. The items found by the front door came from several different rooms in the house; they were not by the front door when she left for her trip.
In October 2016, appellant was charged by information with residential burglary (Pen. Code § 459). A jury found appellant guilty and the trial court sentenced him to the middle term of four years in prison and awarded 710 days of credit. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. There were no prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence at trial. There were no prejudicial errors in the court's instructions to the jury regarding the elements of the charged offenses. Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict. The trial court's sentence and fines were proper.
Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue he believes deserves review. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P.J. We concur. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.