COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
December 29, 2010
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
CLIFFORD EDWARDS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
Super. Ct. No. SCD217432 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Huffman, J.
P. v. Edwards 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Clifford Edwards was convicted following a court trial of two counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code,*fn1 §§ 459 & 460). The court also found true two prison priors within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). At sentencing the court struck the prison priors and imposed a five-year, four-month prison sentence. Edwards filed a timely notice of appeal.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Edwards the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Edwards asked for and received an extension of time, but has not filed a brief in his own behalf.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The two residential burglaries charged in this case occurred on November 24, 2008.
At around 6:00 a.m. on November 24, Tylson Camanho discovered a stranger in his apartment. Camanho and his family left the apartment while the stranger was still inside and notified police. Camanho was only able to provide police a general description of the intruder.
About 45 minutes later Stan Jones was awakened in his apartment by the sound of the opening of his bedroom window. The intruder was not able to fully open the window because of a locking mechanism on the window. The person next opened the bathroom window and removed a bottle of tile cleaner that was located on the window sill. The man then tried to open the living room window with a screwdriver but was unable to do so and then fled when confronted by Jones.
Jones followed the intruder to a nearby convenience store where police were notified. Edwards was apprehended by police. Both Camanho and Jones identified Edwards as the man who entered their respective residences.
As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies the possible, but not arguable issues:
1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions for residential burglary;
2. Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant when the court found the only reasonable inference from the facts at trial was that Edwards intended to steal when he entered the residences; and
3. Whether Edwards was competent to stand trial.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende and Anders and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Edwards on this appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.