Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court No. 05SF0431of Orange County, Richard J. Beacom, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Howard C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FYBEL, J.
Introduction
Defendant Jayson Alden Townsend filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction after a guilty plea. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel suggested that we consider a single issue.
Defendant was given 30 days to file written argument in his own behalf; that time expired without defendant doing so.
We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende brief, and find no arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.
Statement of Facts and Procedural History
On April 13, 2005, Lena Shillinger came home from work and discovered her home had been burglarized. Many items missing from her home, including jewelry and a plasma television, were later found in defendant’s residence.
On April 18, 2005, Karie Katz came home to find her front door open. Katz saw defendant outside her home; when Katz asked him for help because her home was being robbed, defendant “looked me straight in the eyes and freaked and jumped into his car and took off.” Katz’s home was in disarray and many items were missing, including watches and jewelry which were later found in defendant’s residence.
On April 22, 2005, a stolen vehicle was located through its LoJack system. Defendant was found in a house 50 to 100 yards from where the vehicle was found, hiding in a shower. The key to the stolen vehicle was found between the mattress and box spring of a bed in the house. Two diamond rings were found near defendant’s wallet, and defendant was wearing a Rolex watch. Katz identified one of the rings and the watch as having been stolen from her home.
Defendant was charged in an information with two counts of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a) [counts 2 and 3]), receiving stolen property (id., § 496, subd. (a) [count 4]), and unlawful taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) [count 5]). The information alleged defendant had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)(1)), defendant had been convicted of a prior serious felony (id., § 667, subd. (a)(1)), and defendant had served three other prior prison terms (id., § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant pleaded guilty to all charges, and admitted the truth of all the additional allegations and enhancements. The plea agreement included the following factual statement by defendant: “In Orange County, California, on 4/13/05 & 4/18/05, I willfully and unlawfully entered the inhabited houses of Lena Shillinger & Karie Katz with the intent to commit larceny & I possessed stolen property knowing it was stolen on 4/22/05 & on 4/22/05, I unlawfully took a vehicle without the consent of the owner & intended to either temporarily or permanently deprive the owner of his possession of the vehicle.”
The trial court refused defendant’s request to dismiss the strike prior pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of nine years in state prison, which was the sentencing lid agreed to in defendant’s plea agreement. The court sentenced defendant to four years on count 2, which was double the low term. The same sentence was imposed on count 3, and ordered to run concurrently with count 2. Sentence was stayed on count 4 pursuant to Penal Code section 654. A sentence of 32 months was imposed on count 5, and ordered to run concurrently with count 2. Defendant was sentenced to five years on the prior serious felony. The prison term priors were stricken for sentencing. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
The single issue identified by appointed counsel in his Wende brief is whether the trial court abused its discretion in not striking defendant’s strike prior, pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion under section 1385, a trial court “must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [Three Strikes law]’s spirit, in whole or in part.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161; see also People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530-531.) The record in this case shows the trial court gave consideration to defendant’s current crimes, his lengthy criminal history, his own acknowledgement of guilt, and his medical, psychological, and social history contained in both the probation report and a presentencing report prepared on behalf of defendant. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to dismiss defendant’s strike prior.
We have examined the entire record and have found no other potential issues. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., BEDSWORTH, J.