California Court of Appeal Feb 28, 2014 No. D064074Unpublished
Filed 2/28/14 P. v. Detiege CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064074
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244633)
SAMUEL JOSEPH DETIEGE, JR.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M.
Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
Tracy A. Rogers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found Samuel Joseph Detiege, Jr., guilty of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1
and found true an allegation he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during the
1 Further statutory references are also to the Penal Code.
commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Detiege admitted having four prior
The court dismissed the prior prison commitment findings, but denied Detiege's motion
inviting the court to dismiss five of the six prior strike conviction findings. The court
stayed imposition of sentence on the personal weapon use enhancement finding and
sentenced Detiege to 25 years to life for the robbery conviction plus 10 years for the
serious felony conviction findings.
Detiege appeals. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting we
independently review the record for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441-442.) Having done so and having identified no reasonably arguable appellate issues,
we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Prosecution Evidence
A man approached a gas station cashier, pulled out a knife and aggressively
demanded the cashier give him all of the money in the cash register. The cashier opened
the register and gave the man about $1,000. The man then left the store, passing a
customer. The customer noticed the man was carrying cash in his right hand. The
customer did not see a knife, but thought the man mumbled the word "stab."
After the man left, the cashier immediately called 911. Although the man had
something covering his face, the cashier could see his eyes and forehead. She described
the man as biracial, in his 40's or 50's, five feet four or five inches tall, with a medium
2
build, and green or blue eyes. She had seen him at the gas station once or twice before.
At trial and in a pretrial photographic lineup, she identified Detiege as the man.
However, at the preliminary hearing, she testified she was not sure whether Detiege was
the man.
Surveillance video showed the man drove an older two-toned pickup truck with a
camper shell. He wore a white baseball cap, a red long-sleeve shirt, gray jeans, and
brown shoes. About a week after the robbery, a police sergeant saw a truck matching the
suspect's truck. The truck was registered to Detiege and he was the sole occupant of it.
Officers searched Detiege and the truck. They did not find a knife or a large
amount of cash on Detiege or in the truck. A police detective also searched Detiege's
home. The detective did not find a large amount of cash there. However, the detective
found a maroon long-sleeve shirt and a white baseball cap. The detective also found a
butcher knife in the kitchen matching the one used by the robber.
The shirt the detective found matched the shirt worn by the suspect. In addition,
the jeans and shoes Detiege wore at the time of his arrest matched the jeans and shoes
worn by the suspect.
Cell phone records showed calls to and from Detiege's phone around the time of
the robbery used a cell phone tower within a one mile radius of the gas station. One of
the calls was from Detiege's former girlfriend. An expert opined the same tower would
not have been used if Detiege's cell phone was at Detiege's home around the time of the
robbery.
3
Defense Evidence
Detiege's former girlfriend testified that, on the day of the robbery, Detiege was
with her from mid-morning until more than an hour after the robbery occurred. At the
time of the robbery, they were at her home, which was in the same mobile home park as
his home.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings
below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested we review the
record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.
Consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744, counsel identified the
following possible, but not reasonably arguable issues (Anders issues):
(1) Whether the court erred by failing to read the pattern jury instructions as
written;
(2) Whether the court erred by failing to read the pattern jury instruction on alibi
as a separate instruction and instead informed the jury it incorporated the "language of
alibi, that is, the People have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was [Detiege]
who committed the robbery, not just somebody committed the robbery," into another
pattern jury instruction; and
(3) Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Detiege's motion inviting
the court to dismiss the prior strike conviction findings.
We granted Detiege permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He
did not do so.
4
As requested by counsel, we reviewed the record for error and did not find any
reasonably arguable appellate issues. Detiege has been competently represented by
counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for robbery and sentencing enhancements after finding no reasonably arguable appellate issues upon independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether the court erred by failing to read pattern jury instructions as written.
Whether the court erred by failing to read the pattern jury instruction on alibi as a separate instruction.
Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss prior strike conviction findings.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“As requested by counsel, we reviewed the record for error and did not find any reasonably arguable appellate issues.”