Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. NA 070821, Gary Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed.
Debra Fischl, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
ROTHSCHILD, J.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this matter. After examining the record, counsel filed a “Wende” brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We directed appointed counsel to immediately send the record on this appeal and a copy of the opening brief to appellant and notified appellant that within 30 days from the date of the notice he could submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions or argument he wished us to consider. We received no response from appellant.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) We set out below a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)
A jury convicted appellant of one count of second degree burglary. The trial court sentenced him to the three-year upper term based on his numerous prior convictions and doubled that term because one of the priors was a “strike.” The court also imposed an additional year for four of the priors.
The evidence showed that appellant and three juveniles entered a Target store together. While appellant stood at the end of an aisle glancing around as if a lookout, one of the juveniles attempted to cut open a sealed plastic package containing a cell phone. A security officer employed by the store observed this activity and called the police.
The police arrested appellant and gave him the Miranda warnings while he sat in the patrol car. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) After appellant stated he understood his rights, an officer questioned him about the juvenile’s attempt to steal a cell phone. Appellant stated that he drove the three juveniles to the store because one of them wanted to steal a cell phone and another wanted to steal accessories for a cell phone. On the way he told the juveniles that if they did steal these items they would have to take the bus home because he did not want to be stopped with stolen merchandise in his car.
Appellant’s actions inside the store and his statements to the police are sufficient to uphold his burglary conviction as an aider and abettor. Although defendant did not expressly waive his rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney, an express waiver is not necessary. “Once the defendant has been informed of his rights, and indicates he understands those rights, it would seem that his choosing to speak and not requesting a lawyer is sufficient evidence that he knows of his rights and chooses not to exercise them.” (People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 541, 558.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: VOGEL, Acting P. J., JACKSON, J.
(Judge of the L. A. S.Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)