Opinion
D072887
08-01-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GIOVANY ODUNO, Defendant and Appellant.
Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCN370712) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Kearney, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Giovany Oduno was sentenced to prison for 13 years after a jury found him guilty of residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a); subsequent section references are to this code) and found true an allegation that another person not an accomplice was present in the residence during the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)); and the trial court found true allegations that Oduno had a prior conviction that constituted a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), but struck the additional punishment for the prior prison term. Oduno's appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief and asked this court independently to review the record for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having reviewed the record and identified no error warranting reversal or modification of the judgment, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The burglary of which Oduno was convicted arose out of an incident on March 7, 2017, at the condominium of Barbara Levin while Chad Stuart and Cameron Lafoon were there repairing a window. After Levin departed to get her nails done, Stuart was working inside the condominium and Lafoon was working outside. Stuart left the condominium for 10 to 15 minutes, and closed, but did not lock, the front door behind him. When Stuart returned, he found Oduno in a hallway inside Levin's condominium and asked what Oduno was doing there. Oduno identified himself as "Tony" and said that he was there to deliver wood, but he could not identify the owner of the condominium or produce a work order for the delivery. Stuart let Oduno leave, but became suspicious when he saw in the bathroom of the master bedroom several unzipped purses that were not there earlier. Stuart ran after Oduno and confronted him. When Oduno was unable satisfactorily to explain his presence, Stuart telephoned Levin, who said that she was not expecting a wood delivery and told Stuart to call the police. Stuart then told Lafoon to call 911, and Lafoon did so. Oduno turned and ran away.
Oduno was also charged with residential burglary and grand theft arising out of an incident at another location on March 8, 2017. The jury, however, found him not guilty of those charges.
DISCUSSION
Oduno's appointed counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court, raising no claims of error, and asking us to review the record independently for error. To assist us, counsel identified two issues that "might arguably support the appeal" (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders)): (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Oduno's motion to sever for trial the burglary charge arising out of the incident at Levin's condominium from the other burglary charge of which Oduno was acquitted; and (2) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by stating that he was "submitting to the reasoned judgment of the jury" on the burglary charge arising out of the incident at Levin's condominium and focusing his closing argument on the lack of proof of the other charges. We granted Oduno leave to file a supplemental brief, but he did not respond.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the issues identified by counsel pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Oduno has been adequately represented by counsel on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J. WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J. DATO, J.