Opinion
D070989
05-26-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ISIAH J. NELSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Conrad Petermann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. SCD263416) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amalia L. Meza, Judge. Affirmed. Conrad Petermann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Isiah J. Nelson of evading a police officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1); being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29815; counts 2, 4, 5, 6); being a prohibited person in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 7); and first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; counts 8, 10.) It found true allegations as to counts 8 and 10 that the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling within the meaning of Penal Code section 460, subdivision (a) and as to count 10 that another person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the crime (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The court sentenced Nelson to six years eight months in prison.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Count 8 (Burglary)
A witness testified that on June 2, 2015, when she returned to her home in the Clairemont area, it had been ransacked and her jewelry, credit cards, speakers, two laptops, an iPad, and an iPhone were missing. A neighbor testified that earlier that morning she had seen a young male walking up the driveway of the house that was burglarized. Count 10 (Burglary)
On June 17, 2015, two teenage girls were at their home in the Clairemont area when they heard someone ringing their doorbell repeatedly. Instead of answering, they hid and called 911. They heard two males enter the home. One of the intruders told the other to "take the jewelry." The intruders left and police arrived. The master bedroom was ransacked and the owner's jewelry kept in that room was missing. Nelson's DNA was found on clothing as well as on an iPod found nearby.
On August 15, 2015, police detained Nelson after a high-speed chase. Police impounded Nelson's car and found in it credit cards belonging to the count 8 victim.
Nelson appeals under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We granted Nelson permission to file a brief. He wrote a letter challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him on counts 2, 4, 5, and 6, and arguing that as to counts 8 and 10, the evidence against him was "fabricated."
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel indicates he is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for appeal and has asked this court to review the record for error. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following issues in order to assist the court in its search for error:
(1) Was Nelson denied his constitutional right of due process by his conviction of burglary in count 10 based on insufficient evidence where there was no evidence introduced identifying him at the crime scene and the only link to him was that 11 percent of the DNA found on an unidentified iPod located near the crime scene on the day of the burglary matched his DNA?
(2) Was Nelson denied his constitutional right of due process because his count 8 conviction was based on insufficient evidence? Specifically, "the only evidence presented placing him at the crime scene was a neighbor's description of seeing a tall, slender, medium[-]build male walking to the front door of the crime scene, a description that presumably described appellant, and credit cards taken during the burglary were found in [his] car two months later."
(3) Was Nelson denied his rights under Evidence Code section 352 and his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial by overruling his objection to the introduction into evidence of two photographs of him found on Facebook?
"When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged on appeal, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] 'Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.' [Citation.] Unless it describes facts or events that are physically impossible or inherently improbable, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction." (People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 585; see also People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) "While an appellate court can overturn a judgment when it concludes the evidence supporting it was 'inherently improbable,' such a finding is so rare as to be almost nonexistent. ' "To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions." [Citation.] Such cases are rare indeed.' " (People v. Ennis (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 721, 728-729; see also People v. Fierro (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1347). Applying the inherently improbable standard, we conclude the DNA evidence and other evidence presented at trial sufficed to support Nelson's convictions.
We reject the challenge to the court's evidentiary ruling. Given the broad discretion granted to the trial court in making rulings with respect to relevance and Evidence Code section 352 considerations, we review a trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including those turning on the relevance or probative value of evidence, for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 643; People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 930.) We conclude the record provides no basis for a finding the court abused its discretion. Identity was an issue in this case; therefore, the photographs on Nelson's Facebook page were relevant and probative on that point. There was no constitutional violation. " 'As a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense.' " (People v. Blacksher (2011) 52 Cal.4th 769, 821.)
We have reviewed the entire record consistent with the mandate of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Nelson has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. DATO, J.