P. v. De Arce
Filed 12/19/11 P. v. De Arce CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD DE ARCE, Defendant and Appellant. | B231052 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA078816) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Suzette Clover, Judge. Affirmed.
Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found appellant guilty of first degree burglary (Pen Code,[1] § 459). Following the trial, appellant admitted he had prior convictions that came within the meaning of sections: 1170.12 subdivisions (a) through (d) (“the Three Strikes law”
; 667, subdivision (a)(1); and 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant was sentenced to 13 years in state prison. He filed a notice of appeal. I. FACTS
On December 13, 2009, Vartan Nayebyan took a break from cleaning his garage and went inside his home. When he returned 20 minutes later, he noticed two drills were missing from a table inside the garage and called the police. When a police officer arrived, Nayebyan and the officer viewed surveillance video that showed an individual taking the drills. The perpetrator was wearing a striped blue jersey with the number 63 on it.
A few weeks later, the officer observed appellant in the area wearing a striped blue jersey that matched the shirt worn by the person in the video. The officer returned to Nayebyan’s residence, viewed the video once again, and confirmed appellant was the person in the video. Approximately 45 minutes later, appellant was located and arrested while still wearing the blue jersey.
Appellant testified in his defense that he observed two drills lying on the ground outside a garage. He picked them up and left the scene.
II. DISCUSSION
This court appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On August 25, 2011, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues but requesting this court independently review the record for arguable issues on appeal. On August 26, 2011, appellant was notified by letter from this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief.
We have independently examined the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and the sentence imposed was within the trial court’s discretion. There are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 284.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KUMAR, J.*
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KRIEGLER, J.
