Opinion
A147063
03-01-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMARIEA NEWT, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 51316959)
Jamariea Newt appeals a judgment following a jury trial finding him guilty of first degree burglary and the court's imposition of a one-year, four-month prison sentence consecutive to a sentence imposed by the San Francisco Superior Court in an earlier case. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Around noon on December 28, 2012, David D. was in his upstairs bedroom when he heard a noise and saw two people behind his neighbor's home on Catanzaro Way in Antioch. He called 911 and said that people were breaking into his neighbor's house. Then, he saw two people run out of the back gate to his neighbor's yard. One of them was wearing red pants, and ran eastbound on a trail that ran behind the homes. He soon turned and followed the other person who was on the trail running westbound. They were soon followed out the back gate by two other people.
Antioch Police Officer Kris Dee heard the dispatch call about a possible burglary in progress. Based upon descriptions of clothing the suspects were wearing, Officer Dee stopped three individuals in the vicinity of the reported burglary. They were Gerald Coats, Jamare Coats, and defendant Newt, who was wearing red pants. Officer Dee had the three sit on the curb while he waited for a back-up officer to arrive. While he was waiting, Dee noticed that Gerald Coats had a crowbar and was trying to put it into some bushes that were behind his back. When his back-up officer arrived, she retrieved the crowbar, and the three suspects were placed in handcuffs.
David D. was brought to a field show-up. He could not positively identify the three suspects, but their clothing was similar to that worn by three of the people he saw running from his neighbor's yard. When he looked at his home video surveillance system, David D. saw a recording of three individuals dressed like the suspects walking by the front of his home toward Catanzaro Way at about the time of the suspected burglary.
Investigation of a home on Catanzaro Way showed that its rear French doors had been pried open. There were marks on the doors similar to imprints that would be made by the crowbar recovered from Coats if it had been used to pry the doors open. The home was not ransacked, but various drawers were left open in different parts of the house. Officers also recovered a ski mask and gloves from two of the suspects, but not from Newt.
The homeowner had just arrived at her parents' home in Stinson Beach on December 28, 2012, when she received a call from her home security company. No one had permission to be in the home at the time, and she did not know Newt.
Newt was charged by information with a single count of first-degree residential burglary alleged as a serious and violent felony. He attempted to suppress evidence arising from his arrest and detention on the basis he had been detained without a warrant and without cause. His motion was properly denied. He was convicted as charged in a five-day trial. Proper motions and objections were made on Newt's behalf, and none of the rulings raise issues or require further briefing.
Newt was sentenced to the mid-term of four years in state prison reduced to one-third, or sixteen months, because it is consecutive to a term imposed by the San Francisco Superior Court in another case. Pre-sentence credits, fines, assessments and the award of restitution were in proper measure.
DISCUSSION
Newt's counsel has represented that he advised Newt of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of Newt's right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. He has not done so. Newt has also been advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved.
Our full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Siggins, J. We concur: /s/_________
McGuiness, P.J. /s/_________
Pollak, J.