People v. Brown CA2/2

Filed 10/23/13 P. v. Brown CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B242345

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. GA083551, v. GA080712)

HAROLD VAN BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge; Carol Elswick, Judge. Affirmed.

David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Brendan Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

In Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. GA080712, appellant Harold Van Brown pled no contest to first degree residential burglary (§ 459),1 and attempted petty theft (§§ 664/484, subd. (a)). The first degree residential burglary constituted a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a strike offense within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court suspended execution of sentence and placed appellant on formal probation for three years. While on probation, appellant was convicted by jury of first degree residential burglary (§ 459), in Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. GA083551.2 The trial court sentenced appellant to 10 years and four months in state prison, consisting of four years on the burglary charge based on the low term of two years doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus a five-year serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one year and four months (one-third the four-year midterm) for the burglary in case No. GA080712. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that he committed first degree burglary in case No. GA083551. Appellant also contends the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of his probation. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 8, 2011, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Mariana D. returned home from school to her Pasadena apartment. As she went upstairs, she saw on the stairs a pencil box that appeared to have been thrown there. She normally kept the pencil box on top of her closet. She also noticed that inside her bedroom someone had emptied out her bag. Mariana went downstairs and discovered the Xbox video game console was missing from the kitchen. She had last seen it the day before. Mariana called her mother and her uncle.