Opinion
A131932
02-02-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE GRAY II, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FCR259484)
A jury convicted appellant Lawrence Gray II of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)) and the trial court placed him on probation. Appellant timely appealed. He has asked this court to conduct an independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Unless otherwise noted, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2008, the People charged appellant with first degree burglary (§ 459) and grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)). Following the preliminary hearing, the court held appellant to answer on the charges and later — following a hearing — denied his motion to set aside the information (§ 995).
In October 2010, the court granted appellant's second motion to continue and set the case for trial on January 5, 2011. On January 5, 2011, appellant moved to continue the trial, claiming his defense investigator had been unable — despite several attempts — to interview an alibi witness. The court denied the motion as untimely.
At trial, Anthony Sarno testified he discovered his Suisun house had been burglarized when he returned home from work at 3:30 p.m. on July 11, 2008. Several items were missing from his house, including a handgun. Fresh fingerprints taken from the exterior of the house's bedroom window matched appellant's. Law enforcement officers found Sarno's gun in Reno, Nevada, when they arrested Perlundus Brown. Appellant told a Suisun police officer Brown was his friend and that he knew Brown had been arrested for possessing a stolen gun.
Appellant, however, claimed he did not know about the burglary at Sarno's house. Anthony Alford, appellant's alibi witness, testified appellant came to his house in Reno between noon and 2 p.m. on July 11, 2008 and left on July 13, 2008.
The jury convicted appellant of first degree burglary (§ 459) and grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)). The court placed appellant on probation for three years, subject to various conditions.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442. Counsel informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but appellant declined to do so.
We have conducted our independent review and find no arguable issues. The trial court properly held appellant to answer on the charges. The court did not err by denying appellant's motion to set aside the information and his January 5, 2011 motion to continue. Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict. The imposition of probation was not an abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
______
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
_________
Simons, J.
__________
Needham, J.