Opinion
B168498.
11-6-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Richard Williams appeals the judgment entered after conviction following court trial of burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court sentenced Williams to a term of two years in state prison. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2003, at 9:30 p.m., Johnny Lucero flagged down Los Angeles Police Officer Raul Soto. Lucero reported he had seen someone break into his fathers business. Soto went to the building, looked inside and saw a male run south inside the building. After a K-9 unit assisted, Williams was detained in the courtyard of the building. A stack of copper sheets, each 10 feet by 3 feet, had been moved approximately 20 feet to the point of entry. No property was missing.[]
Williams testified in his own defense that he suffers from a psychiatric disorder and had not been taking his medicine for about a week at the time of this incident. Williams claimed he did not break into the building and that he was in the courtyard to sleep.
CONTENTIONS
We appointed counsel to represent Williams on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised and which requested this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
On October 7, 2003, Williams filed a supplemental letter brief in which he contends the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.
DISCUSSION
1. No insufficiency of the evidence appears.
Williams contends the evidence does not support the conviction because Lucero did not see the face of the intruder, no property was missing, no fingerprints were found on the copper sheets and Williams was not inside the building but in the courtyard. Williams asks how the intruder could have exited the building if there were no holes or kicked panels.
Williamss assertions constitute no more than a request that this court reweigh the evidence on appeal. This is not the function of an appellate court. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303.) The evidence clearly was sufficient to permit the trier of fact to conclude Williams was the individual Lucero saw enter the building and that Lucero entered with the intent to steal property, namely, the copper sheets.
2. Review of record by this court.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Williamss counsel has complied fully with counsels responsibilities. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: KITCHING, J. and ALDRICH, J. --------------- Notes: The parties submitted the prosecutions case on the reporters transcript of the preliminary hearing.