Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Jesse I. Rodriguez, Judge, Superior Court County of Los Angeles Super. Ct. No. NA080334
Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
COFFEE, J.
James Joseph Harding appeals the judgment following his conviction by jury of two counts of second degree commercial burglary (counts 1 & 3, Pen. Code, § 459) and two counts of petty theft with a prior (counts 2 & 4, § 666). He admitted four prior felony convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and having served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). After the verdict was rendered, appellant made a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, and a new trial motion, both of which were denied.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Appellant was sentenced to a total aggregate term of seven years and eight months in state prison. The court imposed the upper term of three years on count 1, and a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the midterm) on count 3. As to counts 2 and 4, appellant was sentenced to the upper term of three years, and those sentences were stayed pursuant to section 654. The court imposed an additional consecutive four years for the four prior prison term enhancements.
Anthony Balderama was an officer with the Los Angeles City Police Department. In the early morning on November 17, 2008, he responded to a call at the Best Union Market. Glass in the front door had been shattered and cigarette cartons were found on the sidewalk outside the store. A brick, wrapped in a blue jacket, was on the ground.
The store owner, Rahman Sarkar, arrived at the scene a short time later and played a surveillance video for police officers. It showed a man shatter the glass in the front door and crawl through bars behind the glass into the store. He removed either gloves or socks from his hands, picked up cartons of cigarettes and threw them through the bars onto the sidewalk. The man left the store and put loose cigarette packs in his pockets, then walked away.
Sarkar recognized the man in the video as a customer, probably a transient, but did not know his name. He was Caucasian, wearing glasses, and had a cigarette in his mouth. At trial, officer Balderama identified appellant as the man in the video.
The market was robbed again shortly before midnight on November 25, 2008. The surveillance video showed a man break the front door window, crawl into the store and up to the counter. He reached behind the counter and picked up small boxes and crawled back out the front door. Police officer Giovanni Boccanfuso, who walked a foot-beat in an area occupied by transients, met with Sarkar to see if he could identify the suspect on the videos.
On November 26, 2008, Boccanfuso watched videos of the robberies and identified appellant as the perpetrator in both offenses. Boccanfuso had seen and spoken to appellant every day for several months and knew him by name. Appellant was apprehended two blocks from the market. A box of five Middleton cigars was found in his pants pocket, the same property that was taken from the store.
Police transported Sarkar to the place where appellant was arrested and performed an in-field show-up. Sarkar identified appellant as the person in the videos and the man who frequented his store. Boccanfuso and Sarkar both identified appellant at trial.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On October 8, 2009, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. We have received no response from him.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, Acting P.J. PERREN, J.