Opinion
B301448
06-23-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT HARRIS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA474362) THE COURT:
Appellant Robert Lee Harris was convicted by jury of first-degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) Testimony showed that on November 6, 2018, Hermanio Fernandez locked the security gate over his front door and left for work. When he returned 10 hours later, he observed that the security gate was open. Inside, he saw that money was missing in the form of silver certificates, silver dollars and a gold coin; $55 in change was taken from a glass jar. Three pairs of Air Jordan shoes, a Rams jacket and a Lacoste jacket were stolen. Whoever was in the house fed Fernandez's cat, took a bath and left clothing that Fernandez did not recognize.
A forensic print specialist collected evidence, taking latent fingerprints from the glass jar that once contained Fernandez's coins. The fingerprints were uploaded to a police data base, which showed a match with appellant. To double check, the specialist looked at a fingerprint taken from appellant at the preliminary hearing and determined that it matched the one on the jar.
Appellant did not testify. In closing arguments, defense counsel did not deny that appellant entered Fernandez's home. With moist fingers from his "nice long bath," he touched the coin jar and left "a good clean fingerprint." Counsel argued that "this is not showing the intent of someone who is trying to commit a burglary. [Instead,] someone who is trying to take care of their basic needs, take care of the cat then on the way out ma[d]e a bad decision." Counsel speculated that perhaps Fernandez left the doors unlocked, or appellant obtained the door key from Fernandez's ex-girlfriend. Counsel told jurors, "You can't read Mr. Harris' mind. You have to use circumstantial evidence to figure out what the intent was." Counsel did not argue that appellant had permission to enter Fernandez's home, use his bath or take his possessions. The jury found that appellant had the requisite intent and found him guilty.
Following his conviction, appellant admitted a 2006 felony strike for carjacking. (Pen. Code, §§ 215, 667, 1170.12.) He was paroled for the carjacking in 2015, violated parole four times and was discharged from parole in September 2018. The court denied appellant's motion to dismiss the strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court cited appellant's commission of the burglary two months after his discharge from parole; his arrests while on parole; and the seriousness of a residential burglary.
The court sentenced appellant to the mid-term of four years, doubled for the strike, for a total of eight years in prison. In selecting the mid-term, the court stated that residential burglary is a serious felony and appellant previously was convicted of a violent felony for which he received a substantial sentence; further, appellant rifled at length through the victim's belongings, seemingly aware of the victim's work schedule.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in his appeal from the judgment. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-443.) We advised appellant that he could personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. Appellant did not submit a supplemental brief.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issue exists. The testimony was not inherently improbable or insubstantial. The jury did not credit the defense argument that appellant lacked the necessary intent. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________
LUI, P.J.
/s/_________
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
/s/_________
HOFFSTADT, J.