Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD200391, Kerry Wells, Judge.
IRION, J.
A jury convicted Joshua Jason Cowell of two counts of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)), 16 counts of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A)), and one count of possession of tagging tools (§ 594.2, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Cowell on formal probation for five years, conditioned on, among other things, he complete 200 hours of volunteer work in graffiti abatement and pay restitution to the victim property owners in the amount of $10,735.92.
Statutory references are to the Penal Code. Vandalism is a felony when the damage to the property is $400 or more. (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1).)
Vandalism is a misdemeanor when the property damage is less than $400. (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(2)(A).) Cowell's 16 misdemeanor convictions of vandalism include three counts originally charged as felonies in which the jury found the damage was less than $400.
FACTS
On numerous occasions from July 2005 to July 2006 members of the San Diego Police Department graffiti strike force observed the moniker "Stue" spray painted on windows and walls of buildings, fences, vehicles, road signs, bridges, freeway structures, dumpsters, a rooftop, and other property. Officer Scott Wahl of the task force opined the "Stue" graffiti was painted by one person. During a May 2006 graffiti incident, a security guard saw two individuals trespassing. The pair ran away when the police arrived and ordered them to stop. Cowell's car was found at the scene; spray paint cans were on the floor of the vehicle.
On July 17, 2006, Wahl executed a search warrant of Cowell's residence. The moniker "Stue" was written in numerous places. Police found 148 cans of spray paint. There also were artist canvases and artwork in the residence.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying the defense motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution; (2) whether the court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to hear evidence on uncharged crimes; (3) whether it was error to allow opinion testimony by the officers regarding tagging customs and culture; and (4) whether the court erred by instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt based on flight (CALCRIM No. 372).
We granted Cowell permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Cowell on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., HUFFMAN, J.