Filed 5/8/17 P. v. James 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
DARRYL JAMES,
Defendant and Appellant.
D070422
(Super. Ct. Nos. SCD255814 &
SCD259896)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M.
Rubin, Judge. Affirmed.
Sheila Quinlan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Darryl James was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 13 years eight
months for convictions in two cases that were sentenced together. James pled guilty to
2
one count of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and two counts of petty theft
with prior theft convictions (§§ 484, 666); a jury found him guilty of failing to register as
a sex offender (§ 290.012); and he admitted that he had served three prior prison terms
(§ 667.5, subd. (b)), had 17 prior convictions that constituted strikes under the Three
Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and was out on bail when he failed to
register as a sex offender (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)).
James's appointed counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal,
and inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). James himself filed a supplemental brief in which he
challenges the validity of the forcible rape conviction that requires him to register as a
sex offender. After having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required
by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD255814
On July 21, 2014, James pled guilty to second degree burglary and petty theft with
a prior theft conviction. He also admitted that he had served three prior prison terms and
had 15 prior robbery convictions and two prior attempted robbery convictions, which
constituted strikes. When James failed to appear for the scheduled sentencing hearing,
the trial court issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

1 All subsequent section references are to the Penal Code.
3
B. San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCD259896
In November 2014, a police officer contacted James at a shopping center while the
officer was investigating another matter. The officer checked James's record and learned
that James was required to register as a sex offender. The registration requirement arose
out of James's conviction of forcible rape in Missouri in 1977, which was based on a
guilty plea that he entered when he was 17 years old. (See § 290.005, subd. (a).) The
officer arrested James.
James later admitted to another police officer that he had missed his annual sex
offender registration requirement. Officers also determined that James may have failed
to update his registration upon changing his address.
In March 2015, the People charged James with committing petty theft with a prior
theft conviction and two counts of failing to register as a sex offender, one for missing his
annual registration requirement and the other for failing to register when he changed his
address. On both counts, the People alleged that James committed the offenses while he
was out on bail. The People also alleged that James had served three prior prison terms
and had 17 prior strike convictions.
James pled guilty to the count of petty theft with a prior theft conviction. After the
trial court denied James's motion in limine seeking to invalidate the 1977 Missouri
forcible rape conviction, a jury found James guilty of failing to complete his annual
registration as a sex offender and not guilty of failing to register upon changing his
address. After the jury returned its verdicts, in a bifurcated proceeding James admitted
4
that he was out on bail when he committed the failure to register offense, that he had been
convicted of forcible rape in Missouri in 1977, that he had 11 robbery convictions and
one attempted robbery conviction in 1985, that he had four robbery convictions and one
attempted robbery conviction in 1992, and that he had served three prior prison terms.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court exercised its discretion under section
1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) to dismiss
the allegations concerning all but one of James's prior strike convictions, and sentenced
James as a second-strike offender to an aggregate prison term of 13 years eight months.
The court designated the failure to register count as the principal count and imposed the
upper term of three years (§ 290.018, subd. (b)), and doubled it to six years (§ 1170.12,
subd. (c)(1)). The court imposed a consecutive two-year term for the out-on-bail
enhancement. (§ 12022.1, subd. (b).) The court imposed a consecutive term of eight
months (i.e., one-third the middle term of two years (§§ 18, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a),
1170.1, subd. (a))), and doubled it to 16 months (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), on James's
conviction of the petty theft count that was charged with the failure to register count. On
James's burglary conviction, the trial court imposed a consecutive term of eight months
(i.e., one-third the middle term of two years (§§ 18, subd. (a), 666, subd. (a), 1170.1,
subd. a))), and doubled it to 16 months (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). On the petty theft count
that had been charged with the burglary count, the court imposed a concurrent term of
two years (§§ 18, subd. (a), 666), doubled it to four years (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and
stayed execution of that term (§ 654). Finally, the court imposed three consecutive terms
5
of one year each for the three prior prison terms that James had served. (§ 667.5, subd.
(b).)
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the
trial court, but presenting no argument for reversal and inviting this court to review the
record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel listed as potential issues the following:
"A. Did the amended abstract of judgment accurately reflect the trial court's oral
pronouncement of judgment? [Citations.]
"B. Were there any errors related to the trial court's ruling on appellant's Romero
motion? [Citations.]
"C. Were there any errors related to the trial court's rulings on appellant's motions
in limine?
"a. Was the Missouri prior conviction constitutionally valid? [Citations.]
"b. Was trial counsel in the Missouri prior conviction ineffective for
allowing appellant to plead guilty in that case? [Citation.]
"c. For Missouri plea to be valid, was it required that appellant be advised
of his future duty to register? [Citation.]
"d. Was the Missouri conviction a qualifying offense requiring lifetime
registration in California? [Citations.]
6
"D. Was there sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction? [Citations.]
"E. Were there any errors in relation to the credits awarded in appellant's case?
[Citations.]"
After we received counsel's brief, we provided James with the opportunity to file a
supplemental brief. James filed an untimely brief in which he attacks his 1977 Missouri
forcible rape conviction on the same grounds that he had unsuccessfully urged in his
motion in limine: (1) the Missouri court failed to obtain a waiver of his trial rights before
he pled guilty; (2) Missouri counsel provided ineffective assistance in connection with
the guilty plea; (3) the Missouri court failed to advise James of the lifetime sex offender
registration requirement before he pled guilty; (4) James was denied certain procedural
protections afforded California juvenile offenders before they may be prosecuted as
adults; and (5) the Missouri conviction does not require him to register as a sex offender
in California.
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders,
supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues identified by appointed counsel and those raised
by James, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. James has been
adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
7
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
DATO, J.