People v. Murray CA5

Filed 3/18/25 P. v. Murray CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087699 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. LF013543A) v.

DUSTIN MURRAY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Brian M. McNamara, Judge. Francine R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant and appellant Dustin Murray was found guilty by a jury of attempted burglary, petty theft, and witness dissuasion. The trial court sentenced defendant to 13 years in prison. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no error and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record on appeal. Defendant was invited to submit a letter stating any grounds for appeal, but he failed to do so within the time allotted. We conducted an independent review of the entire record and find no error. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY1

On June 9, 2022, the Kern County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant with: attempted burglary (Pen. Code,2 §§ 664, 460, subd. (a); count 1); dissuading a witness from giving testimony (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1); count 2); petty theft (§ 488; count 3); dissuading a witness from making a report (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 4); and dissuading a witness from causing arrest (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(3); count 5). The information also alleged defendant had suffered a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) which also qualified as a serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). On June 10, 2022, the jury found defendant guilty on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5, but not guilty on count 2. In a bifurcated trial, the jury found true the prior felony conviction allegation. On July 12, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and his