People v. Crites CA1/2

Filed 9/4/14 P. v. Crites CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140741 v. JASON CARL CRITES, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 51309681) Defendant and Appellant.

Counsel appointed for defendant Jason Carl Crites has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Defendant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he elected not to do so. We have conducted that review, conclude there are no arguable issues, and affirm. BACKGROUND A jury found defendant guilty as charged with one count of second degree burglary and one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b), 496, subd. 9a)). Following receipt of the verdicts and discharge of the jury, defendant admitted enhancement allegations that he had three prior convictions, and that he committed one of burglaries while on release from custody (Pen. Code, §§ 1203, subd. (e)(4, 12022.1). The trial court sentenced defendant on the burglary count to two years in the county jail, and suspended execution of a third year. The court initially imposed the same sentence on the receiving count, which it ordered to be served concurrently. However, the prosecutor reminded the court that “If you have a burglary

1

. . . and then possession of property taken from that burglary, I believe under [Penal Code section] 654, that sentence on the possession charge should be stayed,” to which defense counsel stated “I 100 percent agree.” The court thereupon changed the sentence on the receiving count: “I will take both of your suggestions into account and rather than impose a concurrent sentence on Count Two, I will stay imposition of a sentence on Count Two pursuant to . . . Penal Code . . . 654 and not impose a sentence at this time on Count Two.” The brief filed by appointed counsel contains an exhaustive summary of the evidence received at defendant’s trial. That summary is so comprehensive and even handed that, with minor nonsubstantive changes, we adopt it as our own: “Mary Perez is a retired airline employee who volunteers for Christmas for Everyone (CFE), a project she started 28 years ago that feeds 3,000 working poor on Christmas, along with Meals On Wheels clients. CFE has a storage facility at 1801 Shell Avenue in Contra Costa County where it stores CFE equipment, Alhambra Grad Night items, equipment from other projects, and personal property of Perez and a friend of hers, Richard Jordan. CFE pays no rent for the warehouse and is uninsured. The large building contained four rooms and Perez segregated items in the warehouse by project and by item. Some of the items were donated, others purchased. There was no written inventory. Along with Perez, Karen Ramos and Cathy McRoberts were on a committee, and those individuals knew what was there, and had receipts for some items. “Prior to the incident [i.e., the burglary], she had last been to the warehouse around February 11, 2013; at the time she had locked and secured the building, which had an alarm system but no surveillance equipment. A person had to go through two gates, the second one locked, in order to reach the warehouse. Crites did not have permission to be in the warehouse. “On February 24, 2013, after receiving notice of a break-in, Perez visited the warehouse, where she discovered a hole had been cut in the back of the building and things were missing, including most of CFE’s equipment, Grad Night items, personal property of hers, and Mr. Jordan’s personal property. Items that remained behind were