People v. Dodds CA2/8

Filed 4/21/16 P. v. Dodds CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B265825

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA080126) v.

DAVID DODDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph Brandolino, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Thomas K. Macomber, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

A jury convicted defendant David Dodds of identity theft and two counts of first degree burglary. Based on our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 442, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Viewed in accordance with the usual rules of appeal (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357), the evidence introduced at defendant’s jury trial established that on May 27, 2014, Oded Aichen lived with his brother (Zohar Haykeen) and sister-in-law (Miri Haykeen) in the Haykeen’s Tarzana home; on that date, Aichen’s and Haykeen’s mother was a houseguest. At about 6:00 p.m. that day, Aichen was in the guestroom with his mother when the sound of breaking glass caused Aichen to run into the living room to investigate. Aichen saw an arm reaching in through a broken kitchen window apparently trying to open that window. Aichen ran out of the front door and around the side of the house toward that kitchen window. When he arrived, Aichen saw defendant backing away from the broken kitchen window. Aichen shouted at defendant, “What are you doing?” Defendant responded that he was looking for water. Aichen used his cell phone to photograph defendant as he walked to a car in which he drove away. A recording of Aichen’s call to 911 was introduced into evidence. Aichen identified defendant at the preliminary hearing and at trial, but had been unable to indentify defendant in photographic lineups. Police determined that defendant was the registered owner of the car Aichen photographed. Defendant told a detective that he had been at the location looking for water. On June 16, 2014, more than two weeks after the burglary at the Haykeen’s Tarzana home, Monica Teurlings’ Agoura home was burglarized. Teurlings recalled that when she left the house to take her dog for a walk at about 7:00 a.m. that day, the sliding glass door to the backyard was open but the screen door was locked. When Teurlings returned home about an hour later, she discovered that someone had ripped a four foot diagonal slit in the screen door; her $35,000 ring and her husband’s laptop computer were missing. A few days later, Teurlings realized that some cash and a debit card linked to an