Opinion
D072455
03-23-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL JAMES ENNIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Britton Donaldson, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCS290737) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed. Britton Donaldson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Daniel James Ennis pleaded guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle with a prior felony vehicle theft, unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle with a prior felony vehicle theft, possession of burglary tools, and petty theft. A jury found Ennis guilty of robbery, and he admitted three prison priors. The trial court sentenced Ennis to six years in state prison, consisting of three years for the robbery plus three consecutive years for the prison priors. The court also stayed a concurrent sentence of three years for receiving a stolen vehicle, imposed a three-year concurrent sentence for unlawfully taking and driving a vehicle, and imposed a sentence of 230 days for possession of burglary tools and petty theft, with 230 days credit for time served.
Ennis's counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) to determine whether there are any arguable issues for review. We sent Ennis notice that his attorney had filed a Wende brief and provided him with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. He has not responded. After our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Robbery
In November 2016, Ennis entered a clothing store in Chula Vista, California. He selected items, including shoes, and concealed them on his person. Ennis attempted to leave the store with the items, but the store manager confronted him and tried to recover the items. Ennis struggled with the store manager and ultimately left the store with the stolen items worth approximately $88. Surveillance video captured Ennis concealing the items and struggling with the store manager.
Guilty Plea
Ennis admitted that in December 2016, he unlawfully took the vehicle of another without their consent, with the intent to temporarily deprive that person the use of the vehicle. He also admitted that he possessed a vehicle knowing it was stolen; he possessed burglary tools; and he took the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has identified the following issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744): (1) whether trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Ennis to plead guilty both to driving and taking a vehicle and receiving a stolen vehicle; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial after officers gave their opinion that the act in question was a robbery; and (3) whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's misstatements of law and facts in closing argument.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Ennis on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. DATO, J.