Opinion
B190900
12-11-2006
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ESPINOSA MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
Alan C. Stern, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
David Espinosa Mendoza appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of petty theft, and the trial court found he had a prior theft-related conviction. He was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison.
Mendoza was charged by amended information with second degree burglary and petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 484, subd. (a), 666.) The information further alleged that Mendoza had served two separate prison terms for a felony. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
On March 2, 2006, the court declared a doubt as to Mendozas mental competence. Criminal proceedings were suspended pending a mental competency examination, as the result of which Mendoza was found competent to stand trial.
At trial, a grocery store security guard testified that she saw Mendoza remove several toiletry items from store shelves, which he hid in his waistband and pockets before leaving the store without paying for them. The security guard detained Mendoza outside the store where he admitted to her what he did was wrong.
The defense theory was Mendoza lacked the specific intent to steal; he was on several types of medications, the combination of which an expert witness testified could cause a loss of consciousness. Mendoza testified he had no recollection of entering the store and taking the items.
On May 1, 2006, the jury found Mendoza guilty of petty theft, but advised the court they were deadlocked on the burglary count. The court declared a mistrial as to that count and subsequently granted the prosecutions motion to dismiss it. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found true the prior conviction allegations on May 3, 2006. The same day, Mendoza was sentenced to the upper term of three years for committing petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction. The court struck the prior prison term enhancement allegations in furtherance of justice (Pen. Code, § 1385.)
We appointed counsel to represent Mendoza on appeal.
After examination of the record counsel filed an "Opening Brief" in which no issues were raised. On October 31, 2006 we advised Mendoza he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Mendozas attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (Nov. 27, 2006, S133114) ___ Cal.4th ___; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
WOODS, J. --------------- Notes: The sentences in two pending misdemeanor cases were ordered to be served concurrent with this case.