People v. Samano CA5 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 4/17/14 P. v. Samano CA5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,
    F065801
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Super. Ct. No. CRM21924B)
    v.
    ALFREDO SANCHEZ SAMANO,                                                                  OPINION
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT*
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L.
    McCabe, Judge.
    Jeffrey Cunan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
    Respondent.
    -ooOoo-
    *        Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Peña, J.
    INTRODUCTION
    On May 2, 2012, appellant, Alfredo Sanchez Samano, was charged in an
    information with first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 459). On
    June 28, 2012, a jury trial commenced. On July 5, 2012, the jury found appellant guilty
    of first degree burglary. On September 12, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to
    state prison for two years. Appellant was ordered to pay restitution of $1,355.59 to the
    victims, as well as other fines and fees, including a restitution fine of $960. Appellant
    was granted 200 days of custody credits for actual time in jail prior to sentencing and 200
    days of conduct credits for total custody credits of 400 days.
    Appellate counsel has filed a brief seeking independent review of the case by this
    court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    (Wende).
    FACTS
    At 3:15 a.m., on March 17, 2012, Officer Ramon Ruiz of the Merced Police
    Department received a dispatch of a burglar alarm at an address in the 1000 block of
    Robinson Drive. When Ruiz arrived at the scene, he saw a small truck pulling away from
    the residence and radioed for his backup, Officer Fernando Flores, to follow the truck.
    Flores made a U-turn and immediately turned around to follow the truck. Ruiz was
    making a U-turn to follow Flores in pursuit of the truck until he noticed the front door of
    the residence was kicked in, the lights were all on, and Ruiz could see someone in the
    house.
    The man inside the house saw Officer Ruiz and started running from side to side
    toward the end of the hallway, bolting for the front of the house, and ran out the front
    door. Ruiz yelled, “police,” ordered the man to stop, and activated his siren. Ruiz’s
    patrol vehicle lights were already activated. The man continued running from the house,
    through the neighbor’s yard next door, and then out of sight. The man was wearing a
    2
    black jacket, blue jeans, and he was either a White or Hispanic male adult. Ruiz
    identified appellant as the man he saw that night.
    Shortly after losing sight of appellant, Officer Ruiz was notified that Officer Brian
    Rinder had detained a suspect nearby matching Ruiz’s given description. When Ruiz
    arrived at the scene of the detention, he identified appellant as the man who had run from
    the residence on Robinson Drive.
    When Officer Ruiz returned to the residence, every room and the closets had been
    completely ransacked. The codefendant, Enrique Inzunza, who was driving the truck
    Ruiz had seen leaving the house, was found to have items stolen from the house. Officer
    Rinder testified that after receiving Ruiz’s call, he searched the neighborhood in the area
    Ruiz had seen appellant and saw a Hispanic male, later identified as appellant, hiding in a
    bush. Appellant tried to run away and jump a fence, but Rinder yelled for him to stop.
    Appellant was found hiding under a nearby truck. After refusing to come out from under
    the truck, Rinder shot him with his taser and appellant was arrested.
    The son of the homeowners, Jeremy Gose, testified that his parents were out of
    town and he was entrusted with caring for their home. Prior to the burglary, the home
    had been secured and locked. As Gose went through the house with investigating
    officers, he saw a variety of newly damaged things and missing items. Gose described
    the damage as looking like a tornado went through the house. Homeowner, Tracy Gose,
    identified a number of stolen items retrieved from the pickup truck, including her
    jewelry.
    Officer Flores testified that he conducted the stop of the pickup truck when he saw
    it completely blacked out, with no lights on. When Flores attempted to stop the truck, the
    driver took off, resulting in a high-speed chase. When the driver, Inzunza, stopped the
    truck, Flores removed him from the truck at gunpoint. The truck was registered to
    appellant’s father, with whom appellant resided.
    3
    APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
    Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that
    summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests this court to review the
    record independently. 
    (Wende, supra
    , 
    25 Cal. 3d 436
    .) The opening brief also includes
    the declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his
    own brief with this court. By letter on April 3, 2013, we invited appellant to submit
    additional briefing. To date he has not done so.
    After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no
    reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: F065801

Filed Date: 4/17/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021