Opinion
D076275
01-30-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RASHAD FARDAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Alex N. Coolman, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD280922) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed. Alex N. Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Rashad Fardan was originally charged with robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1); assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2); attempted robbery (§§ 664 and 211; count 3); and petty theft (§ 484; count 4). It was also alleged he had suffered a strike prior (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prison prior (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). A jury convicted Fardan of two counts of petty theft and one count of attempted petty theft. Fardan was sentenced to 450 days in county jail.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Fardan filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Fardan the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Fardan's statement of facts in the opening brief is a good summary of the relevant facts of the case. For convenience we adopt that statement here.
Fardan was convicted only of theft offenses that he admitted at trial. Briefly, these were the following:
Count 1, Petty Theft (§ 484): On November 23, 2018, Fardan took beef jerky, a Power Bar, and a beer from a 7-Eleven on San Marcos Boulevard and left the store without paying. The total value of the items was $19. Fardan, who testified at trial, acknowledged stealing these items.
Count 3, Attempted Petty Theft (§§ 664 and 484): On December 2, 2018, Fardan and a companion attempted to walk out of the Mira Mesa Home Depot with a backpack leaf blower, a vacuum, and a smart lock in a shopping cart. The value of the property was $877. A security guard stopped Fardan, at which point Fardan abandoned the shopping cart. Fardan acknowledged having gone to Home Depot to steal items.
Count 4, Petty Theft (§ 484): On January 5, 2019, Fardan walked out of a Fry's Electronics store in San Marcos with a Cannon camera worth $399. Fardan acknowledged having gone to Fry's to steal items. The defense's closing argument repeatedly conceded that Fardan went to the locations to commit theft.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist this court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of the case:
1. Is the sentence of 450 days in jail appropriate, given the evidence of three distinct acts of theft; and
2. Was there any form of prejudicial Griffin error stemming from the prosecution's questioning of Fardan regarding whether he wanted to "incriminate himself in a phone call with a detective.
Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609. --------
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Fardan on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: HALLER, J. DATO, J.