P. v. Campa
Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Campa CA6
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ISAAC JOSEPH CAMPA,
Defendant and
Appellant.
H039763
(Santa Clara
County
Super. Ct.
No. C1349537)
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Isaac
Joseph Campa pleaded no contest to second
degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§459, 460, subd. (b).)
suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation on the
condition that he serve eight months in the county jail.
Defendant
filed a timely notice of appeal, and
we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an
facts but raises no issue. We notified
defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30
days. The 30-day period has elapsed and
we have received no response from defendant.
Pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th
106, we have reviewed the entire record.
Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in People v. Kelly, supra, at page 110, we
provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case,
the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.â€
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the morning of February 6, 2013, the victim and her
13-year-old daughter were at home in San Jose. At about 9:00
a.m., the victim opened the garage door to retrieve her garbage
cans from the street. She then saw a man
facing the front of her house. He put
his hood on his head and his hands in his pockets, and started to walk away. The victim closed her garage door and went
inside her house.
About an hour later, at
approximately 10:00 a.m., a man rang
the doorbell of the victim’s house. The
victim saw him talking on a cell phone and heard him mention her address. She did not answer the door, which was locked
and did not open when the doorknob was “wiggled.â€
While the victim and her daughter
were in the master bedroom, the victim heard noises at the rear sliding glass
door. The victim and her daughter hid in
a walk-in closet and called 911. Police
officers arrived and searched the house.
They found a shovel in the victim’s bedroom, which the victim stated she
had not brought into the house. Additionally,
the officers found gold jewelry on the ground underneath the window that the
victim identified as hers. The victim
also reported that some money from her wallet and some of her jewelry were
missing.
Around the time of the burglary, the
victim’s neighbor and his wife were leaving their home in their car. The neighbor saw two men jump over the
victim’s backyard fence and depart in a Honda Civic parked at the curb. After the neighbor’s wife made an
unsuccessful attempt to take a photograph, the couple followed the Honda Civic as
it ran through several stop signs and red lights without stopping. During the chase, the neighbor’s wife called
911 and provided a partial license plate number for the Honda Civic. The chase ended when the neighbor’s vehicle
was involved in an accident.
Police officers were able to find a
match for the license plate number of the Honda Civic and determined that defendant
was an associate of the registered owner.
The victim was then transported by police officers to the address for
the registered owner, where officers had determined the Honda Civic was
parked. Defendant was present and was
identified by the victim as the person who rang her doorbell before the
burglary.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
information filed in March 2013 charged defendant with first degree burglary
(§§ 459, 460, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor reckless driving (Veh. Code,
§ 23103, subd. (a); count 2). Defendant’s
motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 was denied during the
hearing held on April 24, 2013.
On April 30, 2013, the parties entered into a
information was amended to add the charge of second degree burglary (§§ 459,
460, subd. (b); count 3). Defendant
pleaded no contest to count 3 with the understanding that counts 1 and 2 would
be dismissed and he would be placed on probation with the condition that he
serve eight months in the county jail.
The sentencing hearing was held on May 23, 2013. The probation report submitted in connection
with the sentencing hearing noted that “defendant stated he is an active Norteños
gang member.†Defendant also told the
probation officer that “[a]s to his future plans, [he] intends to return to
work at Largo Concrete, continue to live with his mother, and ‘kick it’ with
his Norteños friends.†The trial court
suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for
three years with the condition that he serve eight months in the county
jail. The court granted defendant
presentence credit of 213 days (107 actual days and 106 days pursuant to
section 4019). Counts 1 and 2 were
dismissed.
The trial court imposed additional
probation conditions, including the following gang-related conditions: “1.
The defendant shall not possess, wear or display any clothing or
insignia, tattoo, emblem, button, badge, cap, hat, scarf, bandanna, jacket or
other article of clothing that he/she knows or the probation officer informs
him/her is evidence of, affiliation with, or membership in a criminal street
gang. [¶] 2. The
defendant shall not associate with any person he/she knows to be or the
probation officer informs him/her is a member of a criminal street gang. [¶]
3. The defendant shall not visit
or remain in any specific location which he/she knows to be or which the
probation officer informs him/her is an area of criminal-street-gang-related
activity. [¶] . . . [¶] 5. The
defendant shall not be present at any court proceeding where he/she knows or
the probation officer informs him/her that a member of a criminal street gang
is present or that the proceeding concerns a member of a criminal street gang
unless he/she is a party, he/she is a defendant in a criminal action, he/she is
subpoenaed as a witness, or he/she has the prior permission of the probation
officer. [¶] . . . [¶] 11.
The Court has deemed this offense is gang related and the defendant is
ordered to register pursuant to Section 186.30 of the Penal Code with the chief
of police/sheriff of the city/county in which he resides, within 10 days of
release from custody or within 10 days of his arrival in any city or county,
whichever occurs first.â€
The trial court also ordered
defendant to pay a $280 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(2)) and
suspended the imposition of a $280 parole revocation restitution fine
(§ 1202.45). The court also ordered
payment of a court security fee
of $40 (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a criminal conviction assessment fee of $30
(Gov. Code, § 70373), and a criminal justice administration fee of $129.75
(Gov. Code, § 29550.2).
At defendant’s request, the trial
court immediately held a hearing on defendant’s ability to pay fees. Defendant testified that he would soon be out
of custody. He also testified that he is
19 years old, has no assets, and dropped out of high school in the 11th grade. His employment history includes working in
construction for as much as $16 per hour.
After his release, defendant intends to seek employment and believes
that he could earn $8 to $10 per hour. Based
on defendant’s testimony, the trial court found that defendant had the ability
to pay fees. The court then imposed a
presentence investigation fee of $450 (§ 1203.1b) and a probation
supervision fee of $50 per month (§ 1203.1b).
APPEAL
Two issues
are stated in defendant’s brief, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738, 744-745, “[t]o assist the court in conducting its independent
review†of the record. These issues are
(1) “Did the court abuse its discretion in imposing gang conditions on
appellant in the absence of evidence that the offense was gang-related?â€; and
(2) “Did the court abuse its discretion when it imposed nearly $1,000 in fines
and fees on appellant and ordered him to pay $110 a month[
in probation supervision fees, given his testimony that he had no job and no
assets?â€
Having carefully
reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)
V. DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
___________________________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, ACTING P.J.
WE CONCUR:
__________________________
Márquez, J.
__________________________
GROVER, J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] All statutory references hereafter are to the
Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
name="_ftn2" title=""> [2] The record reflects that the trial court did
not accept the probation officer’s recommendation that defendant pay a
probation supervision fee of $110 per month and instead ordered defendant to
pay a probation supervision fee of $50 per month.
