People v. Morris CA6

Filed 6/27/14 P. v. Morris CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040326 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1350962)

v.

RONALD DEAN MORRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Ronald Dean Morris pleaded no contest to the charge of petty theft with three or more prior theft convictions (Pen. Code, § 666, subd. (a))1 and admitted the allegations that he had one prior violent or serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)- (i)) that also qualified as a strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and he had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). After denying defendant’s motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) to dismiss the prior strike conviction and striking the two prior prison term allegations, the trial court imposed a term of four years in the state prison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and

1 All statutory references hereafter are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in People v. Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Since no preliminary hearing was conducted in this case, our description of the facts of the instant offense is taken from the probation report. On the afternoon of January 26, 2013, defendant entered a Costco store and concealed store merchandise, a laptop computer, under his shirt. Defendant then left the store without paying for the laptop. The theft was discovered when a store employee found an empty laptop box. The next day, the store manager reviewed video surveillance and distributed a photograph of defendant to store personnel. A Costco store associate recognized defendant on January 29, 2013, when defendant was observed leaving the store and entering a vehicle. The store associate obtained the vehicle’s license plate number and reported the laptop theft to the Santa Clara Police Department. After determining from a records check that the vehicle was registered to defendant’s fiancée, detectives contacted defendant at his fiancée’s residence. A detective immediately recognized defendant from the photograph provided by Costco. Defendant identified himself from the photograph and admitted to the detectives that he had taken the laptop and used it to pay a debt. Defendant asked if he could pay for the laptop, which was not found when the detectives searched the residence.