Filed 7/17/17 P. v. DeCarlos CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY JAMES DECARLOS,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067318

(Super.Ct.No. 16CR024519)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. R. Glenn Yabuno, Judge. Affirmed.
Forest M. Wilkerson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Jeffrey James DeCarlos was charged by information with felony vandalism with damages over $400. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).) The information also alleged that he had one prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i).) A jury found defendant guilty and found true the allegation that the damage caused was over $400. The jury also found the prior strike allegation to be true. Defendant filed a Romero motion to dismiss the prior strike conviction, which the court denied. The court then sentenced him to the middle term of four years in state prison. The court subsequently held a restitution hearing. The parties submitted, and the court ordered defendant to pay $2,316.66 in victim restitution.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2016, S.V. was having dinner at a restaurant with her family. Her one-year-old granddaughter was being fussy, so S.V. took her out of the restaurant to drive her around and get her to fall asleep. S.V. drove her granddaughter around the parking lot in her son-in-law’s car. As she was circling the parking lot, she noticed defendant coming out of a market next to the restaurant. He appeared to be yelling and cussing. Then she saw him make two lunging motions toward her, and she heard the loud noise of something hitting her car, twice. S.V. assumed defendant had thrown rocks at her car, although she did not see him pick up anything. She began honking the horn to get her husband and son-in-law to come out of the restaurant. They came out, and she told them what happened. At that time, defendant took off running, so they chased him on foot. S.V. followed in the car and called 911. S.V. picked up her husband in the car, while her son-in-law continued to run after defendant. S.V. and her husband eventually caught up to defendant. The police responded to the scene and found S.V.’s husband holding defendant on the ground.
S.V. and her husband explained what happened to the police officer. They all went back to the restaurant parking lot, and the officer found a displaced, fist-sized rock in the parking lot. There was a nearby planter that had similar rocks around the plants.
The owner of the car (the victim) testified at trial that his car was a 2015 model and had no damage before this incident occurred. After the incident, he observed damage to his car in two places. He took pictures of the damage, which were shown at trial. The victim took his car to a Toyota dealer, and the dealership told him to take it to a body shop. He took it to the body shop to get an estimate. The victim testified that it would cost between $2,200 and $2,500 to repair it. He did not get the car fixed because he did not want to tell his insurance company about the incident or pay the $1,000 deductible.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and a few potential arguable issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in declining to give a unanimity instruction to the jury; (2) whether the court erred in denying defendant’s Romero motion; (3) whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the admission of hearsay testimony to support the jury finding that the value of the damage was greater than $400; and (4) whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to cross-examine the victim regarding his 2006 misdemeanor vandalism conviction, which was allegedly a crime of moral turpitude. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS


McKINSTER
J.


We concur:


RAMIREZ
P. J.


SLOUGH
J.