From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hall

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
May 29, 2008
No. D051506 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE C. HALL, JR., Defendant and Appellant. D051506 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division May 29, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCE266098, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge.

AARON, J.

Willie C. Hall, Jr., entered a negotiated guilty plea to residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460) and admitted that he had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). Under the plea bargain, which called for a stipulated prison sentence of nine years, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and sentencing allegations. The court sentenced Hall to nine years in prison as follows: the low term of two years doubled to four years for the prior strike conviction plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).

Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTS

On October 30, 2006, Hall and a codefendant entered a laundry room attached to an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit theft.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence that was presented in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible, but not arguable, issue: whether the trial court erred in imposing the five-year sentence enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a) without a finding by a jury that the allegation was true.

We granted Hall permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Regarding counsel's issue, we note that since the California Supreme Court has rejected a similar argument in People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 818, the doctrine of stare decisis obliges us to reject counsel's argument. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Competent counsel has represented Hall on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J., HALLER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Hall

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
May 29, 2008
No. D051506 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE C. HALL, JR., Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: May 29, 2008

Citations

No. D051506 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 29, 2008)