Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA054358, Barry Taylor, Judge.
David D. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Frank Linsalato appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The allegation that he damaged and destroyed property of value exceeding $1,000,000.00 within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.6, subd. (a)(3) was found not true, and appellant was found not guilty of theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487) and vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)). Following a court trial, appellant was found to have suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subd. (b)-(i)). He was sentenced to prison for the low term of 16 months, doubled to two years and eight months by reason of the Three Strikes law.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On December 18, 2006, Octavio Villalobos was working as a security guard at a building located at 8155 Van Nuys Boulevard. On that date at approximately 7:00 p.m., he noticed the main door to the building was damaged. He also saw a red truck in front of the building and saw codefendant Robert Sullivan walk out the main door of the building toward the truck. Mr. Villalobos asked Mr. Sullivan what he was doing, and Sullivan said he was just walking through as a shortcut. Mr. Villalobos recorded the license plate number of the truck before Mr. Sullivan drove away and later gave the number to a peace officer. Approximately ten minutes later, Mr. Villalobos saw appellant and codefendant Steven White enter the building.
In response to a call to investigate, Los Angeles Police Officer, Luis Muro arrived at the scene and conducted a search of the building. On the roof of the building, he found a black satchel containing tools, including shears, a flashlight, a screwdriver, and socket and Allen wrenches. Appellant was discovered in a false ceiling and taken into custody, and codefendant White was apprehended on the sixth or seventh floor, crawling out of the ceiling.
During a booking search of appellant, Los Angeles police officer Ethan Livesey recovered an a/c adapter, a tool commonly used to test wiring, from appellant’s jacket pocket.
Appellant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 was heard and denied.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On April 2, 2008, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On May 9, 2008, he filed a letter stating as of May 3, 2008, he had received no copies of a Wende brief and that without any records or transcripts available to him, he wanted the court to look into the issue of a violation of his right to a speedy trial in that the judge had “waived [his] time over [his] objection in court before trial.” Appellant additionally asked this court to appoint new counsel due to his current counsel’s inability to find arguable issues. Appellant also requested an extension of time to file an additional response.
Over appellant’s objection, the trial court found good cause to continue the matter for trial.
On May 14, 2008, we filed an order denying appellant’s request for new counsel on appeal and advising him that any supplemental brief he wished to file had to be filed 30 days from the date of the order.
No additional response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. With regard to his claim he was denied a speedy trial, he has failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by any alleged denial. (See People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 574-575.) Appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., SUZUKAWA, J.