People v. Griffin

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABDUL K. GRIFFIN, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Mar 11, 2010

No. C061279 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2010)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABDUL K. GRIFFIN, Defendant and Appellant. C061279 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento March 11, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 07F05560

RAYE, J.

About 10:00 a.m. on June 4, 2007, Ralph Reynosa saw defendant Abdul K. Griffin come out of the side gate to the home belonging to Nellie Chassion and jump on a bicycle. Reynosa called the police, got in his car, and followed defendant. When approached by an officer, defendant jumped off his bicycle and went over a fence. The officer followed defendant and ordered him to stop. Defendant refused but was eventually caught. Along defendant’s flight path, the officer found a cell phone. The cell phone belonged to Chassion, who had left it on her dining room table. Her home had a broken window.

Defendant entered a no contest plea to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),¹ receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and resisting arrest, a misdemeanor (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)); admitted a strike prior allegation (a 1992 juvenile adjudication for first degree murder); and waived time credits in exchange for an aggregate term of four years in state prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of four years, that is, the low term of two years for the burglary, doubled for the strike prior, a concurrent 180-day jail term for resisting arrest, and a stay pursuant to section 654 on the receiving stolen property count.

Defendant appeals. The trial court granted defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.)

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J. NICHOLSON, J.