IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
February 14, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
ROSE NARANJO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 08F02185)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.
P. .v Naranjo
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On December 23, 2007, a manager of a Folsom area Safeway store noticed an unidentified male behaving suspiciously in the personal care isle. The manager and another Safeway manager viewed security tapes, which showed the man walking down the aisle with another man and a Hispanic woman who had a shopping cart. The woman had placed a baby carrier covered with a blanket on top of the shopping cart. The men stood beside the woman and removed items from the shelves. The manager later determined many items were missing from the aisle. The missing items were those commonly taken by shoplifting rings. Over $1,000 of merchandise had been taken from the store. The surveillance video was played to the jury.
Over defendant's objection, evidence of three prior uncharged crimes was presented to the jury. In each case, defendant Rose Naranjo and one or more compatriots entered a chain store, where they would take items similar to the ones stolen from the Folsom Safeway and place them in a baby carrier or handbag placed on top of a shopping cart. A booking photograph of defendant and video surveillance of the prior crimes was played to the jury.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460; subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code) and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to 16 months in state prison, imposed various fines and fees, and awarded 76 days' presentence credit, consisting of 38 days' actual time and 38 days' conduct credit. The court later amended the presentence credit award to 88 days (44 days' actual and 44 days' conduct).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
BLEASE , Acting P. J.
MAURO , J.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.