People v. Thompson

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAIE RAINER THOMPSON, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Oct 10, 2007

No. D051059 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2007)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAIE RAINER THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. D051059 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division October 10, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. 264642, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge.

O'ROURKE, J.

Jaie Rainer Thompson entered a negotiated guilty plea pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595 to second degree burglary (Pen. Code,¹ § 459) and admitted a strike (§§ 667 subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court sentenced him to prison for 32 months (twice the 16-month lower term). Thompson appeals. We affirm.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2006, sheriff's deputies went to the Pepper Valley Learning Center to investigate a ringing burglar alarm. They found a door propped open, door handles broken, and the lights on. A security camera had been turned around and the wires pulled out of the back. Thompson was in an office, holding scissors and standing next to a safe. The cover to the safe's electronic keypad was open.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred by ordering a 32-month sentence on the second degree burglary conviction; (2) whether the order for custody credits is correct; and (3) whether there are errors in the sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment regarding a stayed restitution fine, DNA order and court security fee, which the trial court did not verbally order.

We granted Thompson permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Thompson has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P.J., AARON, J.