Opinion
D072233
03-08-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GRANT DONALD CHURCH, Defendant and Appellant.
Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under apportionment 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. JCF34422) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, Judge. Affirmed. Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under apportionment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Grant Donald Church was charged with burglary (Pen. Code § 459; count 1), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 2), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11378; count 3), and vandalism of more than $400 in damages (§ 594, subd. (a); count 4). The information also alleged Church had a strike prior under section 1170.12, serious felony prior convictions under section 667, subdivision (a), and a drug prior conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Church was represented by a series of different defense attorneys, and at times also represented himself in the proceedings. Almost two years after the charges were filed, the matter finally reached trial. On the second day of the prosecutor's presentation of evidence, the parties reached a plea agreement in which Church admitted to possession of methamphetamine for sale and a 2001 prior strike conviction for first degree burglary. In exchange for the guilty plea, the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed and the parties stipulated to a six-year term, consisting of the upper term of three years for count 3, doubled for the strike prior.
The trial court sentenced Church to the agreed term, awarded Church presentence credits, imposed several fines, and awarded victim restitution. Church requested a hearing on the amount of restitution and the parties subsequently stipulated to restitution in the amount of $47,566.33. After the trial court entered final judgment including the stipulated amount of victim restitution, Church filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she identified no reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record as mandated by Wende. We offered Church the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he did not respond.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of February 10, 2015, Church broke into a gas station convenience store and then into the store's ATM. He took a large amount of cash from the machine, tampered with the store's surveillance system, and stole the DVR player for the system. The damage to the store and the ATM was substantial, including a hole in the side of the building. The burglary occurred just before the store's cashier was arriving for work. As she approached the store, the cashier and her companion saw a dark green Lexus sedan parked nearby. The two witnesses then saw a man in a black jacket with a hood over his head exit the store and get into the Lexus, which was driven away by a blonde woman. The cashier called the police and her companion provided a partial license plate number for the Lexus. Officers at the scene discovered footprints in freshly laid asphalt near the gas station where the witnesses had reported seeing the perpetrator.
The responding officers briefed their supervisor, Sergeant Fisher, about the crime. Fischer identified Church as the possible perpetrator based on the description of the Lexus given by the two witnesses and Church's prior arrest for similar burglaries. That day the police set up surveillance at Church's last known residence, where they discovered the same Lexus parked outside. Around 11:00 p.m. that night, Church left the house, got into the Lexus and started to drive away, but then pulled back into the driveway and went back inside the house. A few minutes later, he left the house again and got into the passenger side of a truck parked at the house. Church then got back into the Lexus. As police officers approached, he got out of the car once again, but the officers observed him reach into the car behind the driver's seat. After officers arrested Church, they located a round baggie on the back floorboard that was later confirmed to contain methamphetamine. The police found between $200 and $300 in $20 bills in Church's pockets. A search of Church's home and adjacent shed uncovered between $500 and $600 in $20 bills inside a light fixture and the stolen DVR player.
Church denied participating in the burglary, but told police he instructed the perpetrator how to commit the crime. To explain the methamphetamine, Church told officers he took the drugs from the owner of the other car in his driveway to set him up with the Imperial County Narcotics Task Force, though Church also said no one from the task force had instructed him to set up the man. Fisher also inspected Church's shoes, which had a black substance on them and a tread pattern similar to the one left behind in the asphalt near the burglarized store.
DISCUSSION
As indicated, appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende and asked this court to review the record for error. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel identified the following possible issues to assist this court in our review of the record: (1) Whether Church received ineffective assistance of counsel related to the stipulated restitution award; (2) whether the court erred in denying Church's request to dismiss counts 1 and 3 based on his claim that the information was improperly amended; (3) whether the court erred in denying Church's request to enforce an earlier, rejected plea offer; and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying Church's pretrial motion to exclude his statements to police under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
Our review of the record as mandated by Wende and Anders, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel, disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel represented Church on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
DATO, J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, Acting P. J. IRION, J.