Cardwell
Filed 6/5/13 P. v. Cardwell
CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GABRIEL
ANTHONY CARDWELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062674
(Super. Ct.
No. SWF025954)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Larrie R. Brainard, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Super. Ct.,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal.
Const.) Affirmed.
Steven S.
Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury
convicted defendant Gabriel Anthony Cardwell of commercial burglary by use of
an acetylene torch, grand theft, and threat of force on a peace officer. (Pen. Code,
§§ 464, 487, subd. (a) & 69.)
Cardwell admitted a three strikes prior within the meaning of section
667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1) and a prison prior within the meaning of
section 667.5, subdivision (b).
Initially, the trial court sentenced Cardwell to a total term of 16
years four months and awarded him a total of 1143 days of actual and section
4019 credits.
On Cardwell's first appeal, we reversed his
further proceedings. On remand, the
district attorney elected to dismiss the burglary charge and the trial court
sentenced Cardwell to a term of eight years four months on the grand theft
conviction. The trial court also gave
Cardwell an additional six days of credit under section 4019.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review
the record for error as mandated by People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
We granted Cardwell permission to file a brief on
his own behalf, and he did so. In his
brief, Cardwell argues the trial court erred when, without consulting counsel,
the trial court responded to a jury question.
The record shows that during trial, the jury asked the trial court the
following question: "Does aiding
and abetting apply to each charge individually or all three as a
whole[?]" The trial court
responded: "Each charge is to be
decided separately, thus each is independent of the other."
Our review of the record pursuant to
to the jury's question was accurate and thus any failure to consult counsel did
not cause any prejudice.
We find that Cardwell was adequately represented
both at trial and on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER,
J.
McINTYRE,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
