Opinion
A140599
11-05-2014
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAMIEN D. OLIVE, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 13013948)
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Damien Olive of residential burglary. Defendant's counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2013, defendant was charged by information with first degree burglary (Pen. Code § 459; count one), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count two), and resisting a police officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count three). The information alleged prior serious felony (§§ 667. subd. (a)(1)) and prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) enhancements. The trial court dismissed the second and third counts on defendant's motion.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
A jury found defendant guilty of first-degree burglary, and the trial court found true the enhancement allegations. The court sentenced defendant to state prison for nine years, consisting of the four-year middle term for the burglary (§ 461, subd. (a)) and a consecutive five-year enhancement in accordance with section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The court awarded 586 days of presentence credits and imposed fines. This appeal followed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant is the son of Annearl Olive, who lives on Gilroy Street in San Francisco. Ms. Olive's neighbor is Kent Myers. On the morning of February 13, 2013, Mr. Myers heard the sound of a car pulling up outside his house. He later heard voices outside and saw defendant and another man carrying boxes to a car parked in front of Ms. Olive's house. One of the boxes was so large that both men carried it together.
That evening, Ms. Olive discovered one of her bedroom windows was broken. She also noticed a boxed large flat screen television and yellow vacuum cleaner were missing from her garage. Defendant did not have permission to enter her home and remove the television and vacuum cleaner.
Officers from the San Francisco Police Department visited the house where defendant was reported to be living. Defendant looked out the window and then left through the rear of the property. A resident of the house consented to a search and officers found items matching the description of Ms. Olive's television and vacuum.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. There were no prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence at trial. There were no prejudicial errors in the court's instructions to the jury regarding the elements of the charged offenses. Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict. The trial court's sentence and fines were proper.
Appellate counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court's attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. There are no legal issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
We concur. /s/_________
NEEDHAM, J.
/s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.