People v. Myers CA2/1

Filed 9/25/14 P. v. Myers CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B249928

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA408306) v.

DANIEL LEE MYERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frederick N. Wapner, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel Lee Myers, in pro. per., and Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

A jury convicted Daniel Lee Myers of seven counts of second degree burglary and one count of attempted second degree burglary. Defendant broke into classrooms at Marvin Elementary School (“Marvin school”) four times between January 25 and February 22, 2013, and stole six Apple iMac computers, along with peripherals. He broke into the computer laboratory at Monsignor Oscar Romero Charter School (“Oscar Romero school”) three times between January 31 and February 21, 2013, and stole 10 Apple iMac computers, along with peripherals. He was observed on the closed and locked grounds of the latter school near the computer laboratory on February 25, 2013, and was arrested after walking off the campus in front of a school police undercover vehicle from which officers were conducting surveillance to catch the school burglar. Burglary tools were found resting against an exterior wall of the computer laboratory. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years four months in county jail. Defendant filed a timely appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising several issues we briefly address. 1. Defendant’s contentions related to denial of request for DNA testing of jacket First, defendant argues the trial court’s reversal of its prior ruling appointing an expert to conduct DNA testing on the jacket defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest violated Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [83 S.Ct. 1194] (Brady) and defendant’s rights to a fair trial and to present a defense. The jacket was one aspect of the prosecution’s proof that defendant was the serial school burglar because surveillance video from the grounds of Marvin school showed lettering on the back of the burglar’s dark jacket and surveillance video from inside the computer laboratory at Oscar Romero school revealed the burglar was wearing a jacket with “Security Unlimited” on the back. The officers who observed defendant and arrested him just after he left the campus on February 25, 2013, testified he was wearing a dark jacket with “Security Unlimited”