From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Long

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Aug 18, 2009
No. D053448 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREG LONG, Defendant and Appellant. D053448 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division August 18, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN243424, David J. Danielsen, Judge.

O'ROURKE, J.

A jury found Greg Long guilty of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). The court sentenced him to the three-year middle prison term. Long appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On April 3, 2007, a man entered a shoe store. A short time later, he approached the checkout counter with a shoebox, placed it on the counter and showed cashier Ladiani Montano a note demanding money. The man had a gun. Montano opened the cash register. The man removed money from the drawer and left the store, leaving the note and box behind. Montano called 911. A sheriff's deputy arrived within minutes but could not find the robber.

In early 2008 the sheriff's department determined that fingerprints on the note and box were Long's. In March Long was arrested and taken to the sheriff's station. At the station, Long had a seizure. He was taken to the hospital. About an hour later, a detective went to the hospital, read Long his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) and questioned him. Long eventually admitted he had committed the robbery but denied having a gun.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to 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 lists, as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether Long's confession was voluntary; (2) whether the court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of grand theft and petty theft; (3) whether Long's absence when the court conferred with counsel about a note from the jury violated his right to be present at trial; and (4) whether Long was sentenced in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because the court made factual findings to determine his sentence.

We granted Long 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 issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Long has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., AARON, J.


Summaries of

People v. Long

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Aug 18, 2009
No. D053448 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Long

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREG LONG, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Aug 18, 2009

Citations

No. D053448 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2009)