From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wright

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Jul 31, 2008
No. B206384 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County No. 1253952, of Santa Barbara Clifford R. Anderson, Judge

Robert D. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


GILBERT, P.J.

Jon Jeffery Wright appeals a judgment after conviction by jury of first degree residential burglary, misdemeanor resisting arrest, misdemeanor prowling, and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 148, subd. (a)(1), 647, subd. (h); Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.) We appointed counsel to represent him in this appeal. After counsel's examination of the record, he filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

On June 16, 2008, we advised Wright that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him contending that insufficient evidence supports his conviction of residential burglary. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124, we present a factual and procedural summary of the case, and a brief discussion of Wright's contention.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In the evening of September 21, 2007, Santa Barbara Police Officers responded to a report of a prowler at 221 East Santa Barbara Street. The report described the prowler as a black male wearing a white shirt and dark pants.

Police Officer Andre Feller entered the apartment complex across the street from the reported address, and saw Wright walking and carrying items. Feller asked if Wright would speak with him, but Wright fled. Feller gave chase and as Wright ran, he dropped a camera, photographic equipment, and cosmetics. Wright eventually complied with Feller's commands to stop.

Another police officer brought the prowling complainant to the arrest scene. Following an admonition, the victim identified Wright as the prowler.

Upon his arrest, police officers searched Wright's clothing and found drug paraphernalia (a glass pipe) in his pocket.

Several hours later, a resident of 210 Santa Barbara Street telephoned police and reported that her residence had been burglarized. Her front door had been opened, and a camera, photographic equipment, and cosmetics were missing. The victim later identified the articles dropped by Wright as belonging to her.

By information, the prosecutor charged Wright with residential burglary, misdemeanor resisting arrest, misdemeanor prowling, and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 148, subd. (a)(1), 647, subd. (h); Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.) A jury trial followed. Police officers testified and described Wright's apprehension and arrest. The prowling victim and the burglary victim also testified.

The jury convicted Wright of all charges. The trial court sentenced him to an upper term of six years' imprisonment, including concurrent terms in county jail for the misdemeanor convictions. The trial court awarded Wright presentence credit of 180 days, including 60 days of conduct credit. It also imposed a $200 restitution fine and a $200 parole revocation restitution fine, among other fines and fees. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45.)

DISCUSSION

In assessing the sufficiency of evidence to support a judgment, we review the evidence most favorably to the judgment to determine whether reasonable and credible evidence exists from which a reasonable trier of fact could have determined guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.) We do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. (Ibid.) Nor do we substitute our reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence for those drawn by the trier of fact. (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)

Sufficient evidence supports the burglary conviction. Police officers found Wright in possession of stolen property shortly after a resident complained of a prowler in the area. Wright refused to speak to police officers and fled, dropping the stolen property as he ran. The burglary victim's residence was adjacent to the address of the prowling victim. Possession of stolen property with slight corroborating evidence provides sufficient evidence to support a burglary conviction. (People v. Citrino (1956) 46 Cal.2d 284, 288.)

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Wright's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: YEGAN, J., COFFEE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Wright

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Jul 31, 2008
No. B206384 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JON JEFFERY WRIGHT, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Jul 31, 2008

Citations

No. B206384 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2008)