People v. Aguilar CA6

Filed 11/10/14 P. v. Aguilar CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H040627 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1245527)

v. SAMUEL AGUILAR et al.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a joint trial, a jury found Samuel Aguilar (Aguilar) and Malia Mulgrew (Mulgrew) guilty of grand theft. (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a).) Subsequently, on January 24, 2014, the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Aguilar on probation for three years with various terms and conditions, and ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail.1 The court imposed various fines and fees. Similarly, as to Mulgrew, the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed her on probation for three years on various terms and conditions, and sentenced her to 180 days in county jail. Again, the court imposed various fines and fees. Both Aguilar and Mulgrew filed timely notices of appeal. Aguilar's appointed counsel and Mulgrew's appointed counsel have both filed opening briefs in which no issues are raised; both ask this court to conduct an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Aguilar's counsel has declared that she notified Aguilar that no issues were

1 The court denied Aguilar's request pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b)(3) to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor.

being raised by counsel on appeal, that an independent review under Wende was being requested, and that she notified Aguilar that he could file a supplemental brief with this court. Similarly, Mulgrew's counsel has declared that she notified Mulgrew that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, that an independent review under Wende was being requested, and that she notified Mulgrew that she could file a supplemental brief with this court. On June, 27, 2014, by letter, we notified Mulgrew of her right to submit written argument on her own behalf within 30 days. That time has passed and we have not received a response from Mulgrew. On July 15, 2014, we notified Aguilar of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Again, that time has passed and we have not received a response from Aguilar. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there are no arguable issues on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendants were convicted, and the punishment imposed. (Id. at p. 110.) Facts and Proceedings Below Abdul Porter, a loss prevention officer at Home Depot, noticed Aguilar and Mulgrew when they walked quickly to the middle of the Milpitas Home Depot store; Aguilar grabbed a cart that was loaded with merchandise waiting to be re-shelved. Porter watched as Aguilar and Mulgrew went to different departments and then abandoned the cart. When they began pushing a flatbed cart that was loaded with a bathroom vanity, Porter called an associate, Theautry Snyder, to assist him. Porter positioned himself inside shelving and watched as Aguilar repositioned the vanity on the cart. When Aguilar walked away, Porter told Snyder to watch him. When Mulgrew left the cart, Porter walked over to it and pried open the vanity; he saw two Dyson vacuum cleaners inside. Aguilar and Mulgrew returned and pushed the cart to