Opinion
D070422
05-08-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRYL JAMES, Defendant and Appellant.
Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD255814 & SCD259896) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Rubin, Judge. Affirmed. Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Darryl James was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 13 years eight months for convictions in two cases that were sentenced together. James pled guilty to one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and two counts of petty theft with prior theft convictions (§§ 484, 666); a jury found him guilty of failing to register as a sex offender (§ 290.012); and he admitted that he had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), had 17 prior convictions that constituted strikes under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and was out on bail when he failed to register as a sex offender (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)).
All subsequent section references are to the Penal Code. --------
James's appointed counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, and inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). James himself filed a supplemental brief in which he challenges the validity of the forcible rape conviction that requires him to register as a sex offender. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD255814
On July 21, 2014, James pled guilty to second degree burglary and petty theft with a prior theft conviction. He also admitted that he had served three prior prison terms and had 15 prior robbery convictions and two prior attempted robbery convictions, which constituted strikes. When James failed to appear for the scheduled sentencing hearing, the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. B. San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD259896
In November 2014, a police officer contacted James at a shopping center while the officer was investigating another matter. The officer checked James's record and learned that James was required to register as a sex offender. The registration requirement arose out of James's conviction of forcible rape in Missouri in 1977, which was based on a guilty plea that he entered when he was 17 years old. (See § 290.005, subd. (a).) The officer arrested James.
James later admitted to another police officer that he had missed his annual sex offender registration requirement. Officers also determined that James may have failed to update his registration upon changing his address.
In March 2015, the People charged James with committing petty theft with a prior theft conviction and two counts of failing to register as a sex offender, one for missing his annual registration requirement and the other for failing to register when he changed his address. On both counts, the People alleged that James committed the offenses while he was out on bail. The People also alleged that James had served three prior prison terms and had 17 prior strike convictions.
James pled guilty to the count of petty theft with a prior theft conviction. After the trial court denied James's motion in limine seeking to invalidate the 1977 Missouri forcible rape conviction, a jury found James guilty of failing to complete his annual registration as a sex offender and not guilty of failing to register upon changing his address. After the jury returned its verdicts, in a bifurcated proceeding James admitted that he was out on bail when he committed the failure to register offense, that he had been convicted of forcible rape in Missouri in 1977, that he had 11 robbery convictions and one attempted robbery conviction in 1985, that he had four robbery convictions and one attempted robbery conviction in 1992, and that he had served three prior prison terms.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court exercised its discretion under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) to dismiss the allegations concerning all but one of James's prior strike convictions, and sentenced James as a second-strike offender to an aggregate prison term of 13 years eight months. The court designated the failure to register count as the principal count and imposed the upper term of three years (§ 290.018, subd. (b)), and doubled it to six years (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The court imposed a consecutive two-year term for the out-on-bail enhancement. (§ 12022.1, subd. (b).) The court imposed a consecutive term of eight months (i.e., one-third the middle term of two years (§§ 18, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a), 1170.1, subd. (a))), and doubled it to 16 months (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), on James's conviction of the petty theft count that was charged with the failure to register count. On James's burglary conviction, the trial court imposed a consecutive term of eight months (i.e., one-third the middle term of two years (§§ 18, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a), 1170.1, subd. a))), and doubled it to 16 months (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). On the petty theft count that had been charged with the burglary count, the court imposed a concurrent term of two years (§§ 18, subd. (a), 666), doubled it to four years (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and stayed execution of that term (§ 654). Finally, the court imposed three consecutive terms of one year each for the three prior prison terms that James had served. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court, but presenting no argument for reversal and inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel listed as potential issues the following:
"A. Did the amended abstract of judgment accurately reflect the trial court's oral pronouncement of judgment? [Citations.]
"B. Were there any errors related to the trial court's ruling on appellant's Romero motion? [Citations.]
"C. Were there any errors related to the trial court's rulings on appellant's motions in limine?
"a. Was the Missouri prior conviction constitutionally valid? [Citations.]
"b. Was trial counsel in the Missouri prior conviction ineffective for allowing appellant to plead guilty in that case? [Citation.]
"c. For Missouri plea to be valid, was it required that appellant be advised of his future duty to register? [Citation.]
"d. Was the Missouri conviction a qualifying offense requiring lifetime registration in California? [Citations.]
"D. Was there sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction? [Citations.]
"E. Were there any errors in relation to the credits awarded in appellant's case? [Citations.]"
After we received counsel's brief, we provided James with the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. James filed an untimely brief in which he attacks his 1977 Missouri forcible rape conviction on the same grounds that he had unsuccessfully urged in his motion in limine: (1) the Missouri court failed to obtain a waiver of his trial rights before he pled guilty; (2) Missouri counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with the guilty plea; (3) the Missouri court failed to advise James of the lifetime sex offender registration requirement before he pled guilty; (4) James was denied certain procedural protections afforded California juvenile offenders before they may be prosecuted as adults; and (5) the Missouri conviction does not require him to register as a sex offender in California.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues identified by appointed counsel and those raised by James, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. James has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
AARON, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
BENKE, Acting P. J. /s/_________
DATO, J.