P. v. Sea

Filed 2/27/06 P. v. Sea CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In case No. SC138060A, defendant William Robert Sea appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of felony petty theft with a prior. (Pen. Code,[1] § 666.) In case No. SC118376A, he appeals after the trial court revoked his probation. His counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

In case No. SC118376A, defendant pled guilty in 2001 to a violation of section 666, petty theft with a prior. He was placed on probation for five years, and imposition of sentence was suspended. One of the conditions of his probation was that he conduct himself in a law-abiding manner.

Defendant was charged in case No. SC138060A with petty theft with a prior, based on allegations that on October 8, 2004, he stole property from a Target store. The information alleged two priors: his conviction in case No. SC118376A, and a 2000 grand theft (§ 487, subd. (d)). In addition, based on the allegation that the theft charged in case No. SC138060A violated the terms of defendant's probation, a petition for revocation of probation was filed in case No. SC118376A. Defendant denied the allegations of the revocation petition, but admitted the information's prior conviction allegations.

A jury trial took place in case No. SC138060A in March 2005. The evidence at trial showed that in October 2004, Alfred Baena, a loss prevention supervisor at a Target store, saw defendant in the store behaving suspiciously, pacing back and forth, looking at the ceiling, and appearing nervous. Defendant picked up a digital camera with a printing dock, walked quickly through the lawn and garden center, and left the store. As he passed the check stands, alarms went off, but he did not slow down. He did not look at the plants as he passed by, and did not move toward the shopping carts as he walked out. Baena followed defendant and stopped him outside at the edge of the curb, introducing himself as Target security. Defendant told Baena that he had stolen the merchandise for his wife because her car and other belongings had just been stolen.

Defendant testified that after he picked up the camera, he went to the garden center to buy plants that were on display out in the front of the store, and that he went outside to get a shopping cart. He denied having told Baena that he had stolen the camera, and stated that he had intended to pay for the camera.

The jury found defendant guilty of petty theft with a prior in case No. SC138060A. Defendant submitted the probation revocation petition in case No. SC118376A on the evidence, and the trial court found defendant had violated the terms of his probation.

Another petition for revocation of probation was filed in case No. SC118376A on April 4, 2005, alleging defendant had been arrested in Sonoma County for making fraudulent credit card purchases on a previous employer's credit card account. A hearing on the petition took place on April 15, 2005, and the court found the allegations true.

The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years in state prison in case No. SC138060A, and imposed a consecutive sentence of eight months, which was one-third the midterm, in case No. SC118376A. (§§ 18, 666.) It imposed restitution and parole revocation fines of $800 each (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45), and a court security fee of $20 (§ 1465.8).

Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The evidence supports the jury verdict and the trial court's findings. The trial court properly calculated the sentence. There are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

________________________

RIVERA, J.

We concur:

___________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.

___________________________

SEPULVEDA, J.

Publication courtesy of Vista Copyright Lawyer (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And Vista Lawyers Directory

( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )

[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.