People v. Farias CA4/1 ( 2014 )

Filed 10/31/14 P. v. Farias 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D065162
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS263956)
RAUL FARIAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Tamila E. Ipema, Judge. Affirmed.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Raul Farias of petty theft and found true an allegation that he had
previously been convicted of three theft-related offenses, one of which was a felony
strike. The trial court sentenced Farias to the low term of 16 months in prison which was
doubled to 32 months as a result of the felony strike.
Farias's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our
independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 436
(Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We find no arguable
issue and affirm.
FACTS
On a morning in February 2013, Bulmaro Estrada heard a noise in the backyard of
his apartment and looked out the window. He saw Farias jump over a chain link fence
into his backyard. Estrada went into the backyard and saw Farias. Estrada struggled with
Farias and prevented him from escaping by knocking him down.
Estrada's wife called 911 and Estrada got on the phone to talk to the 911 operator.
The police arrived shortly thereafter and detained Farias. Estrada noticed that three
platform dollies he used for moving heavy things were in a vacant lot outside his fence.
Farias testified in his own defense. He stated he remembered being hit by Estrada
in Estrada's patio and being detained by the police, but did not recall anything before that.
Farias testified he drank approximately 18 beers and took one gram of methamphetamine
prior to being detained.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. He presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review
the record for error as mandated by Wende. Under Anders, he listed as possible but not
arguable issues, whether the trial court erred by (1) admitting a recording of the 911 call,
(2) admitting Farias's prior convictions under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision
2
(b), (3) admitting the prior convictions for impeachment purposes, and (4) denying
Farias's request to strike his prior strike or reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor. We
granted Farias permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.
Our review of the record pursuant to Wende, including the possible issues listed by
counsel pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable issues on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Farias on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
3