People v. Morgan CA4/1 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/19/14 P. v. Morgan CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    THE PEOPLE,                                                         D065020, D065197
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. JCF28153,
    JCF31091)
    ANTHONY RAY MORGAN,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, L. Brooks
    Anderholt and William D. Lehman, Judges. Affirmed.
    Amanda Fates, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    A jury convicted Anthony Ray Morgan of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) in case No.
    D065197. In case No. D065020, Morgan entered a guilty plea to felony taking of a
    vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)).
    The court sentenced Morgan to six years in prison in case No. D065197 and to a
    concurrent three-year term for case No. D065020. Morgan filed a timely notice of
    appeal.
    Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    (Wende) indicating she is unable to present a reasonably arguable issue for reversal on
    appeal and asks this court to review the record for error as required by Wende. As
    required by Anders v. California (1967) 
    386 U.S. 738
     (Anders) counsel has indentified
    three possible, but not reasonably arguable issues for our consideration.
    We offered Morgan the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he has
    responded with a letter brief. We will address Morgan's brief separately below.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    In the burglary case, D065197, the victim came home on March 30, 2013, and
    discovered his home had been entered. He saw a woman outside and a man inside.
    When he approached, the man and the woman fled.
    That evening the victim gave a description of the male suspect. About one month
    later the victim was arrested and found himself in custody with Morgan. The victim was
    afraid. After he was released from custody the victim was visited by several people who
    urged him not to testify.
    The victim testified he was under the influence of drugs at the time of the
    burglary. He testified he thought Morgan was not the burglar.
    2
    DISCUSSION
    As we have noted appellate counsel has indicated she is unable to discover any
    reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Thus, counsel asks this court to review
    the record as required by Wende, supra, 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    . In accordance with Anders,
    
    supra,
     
    386 U.S. 738
    , counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable
    issues for our consideration:
    1. Whether it was error for Officer Magana to testify, without objection, that he
    was very familiar with Morgan due to prior police contacts?
    2. Whether it was error to allow the victim to testify, without objection, that
    several people came to his house to encourage him not to testify in this case?
    3. Whether in the vehicle theft case, D065020, the court erred in imposing,
    without objection, a $550 restitution order?
    As we have noted, Morgan has filed his own supplemental brief. In that brief
    Morgan essentially argues his counsel was ineffective, the witnesses were not truthful,
    and the prosecutor committed misconduct by presenting false testimony. Unfortunately,
    there is nothing in the record that would permit us to review his contentions. These
    issues were not developed in the trial court and Morgan has not cited us to anything in the
    record.
    It appears that Morgan's remedy, if any, is to file a petition for habeas corpus in
    the Imperial County Superior Court. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 
    15 Cal.4th 264
    ,
    266-267.)
    3
    We have reviewed the entire record and have not discovered any reasonably
    arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Morgan has been represented by competent
    counsel on this appeal.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    HALLER, J.
    AARON, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D065020

Filed Date: 9/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021