People v. Hill CA4/2

Filed 2/14/22 P. v. Hill CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
E077475
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. FWV21001029)
v.
OPINION
JACK WAYNE HILL II,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson,
Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
After trial, a jury convicted Jack Wayne Hill II of two counts of felony vandalism.
Hill appealed his conviction. His attorney filed a brief informing this court they were
unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review of the
record. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm.
I
FACTS
On March 13, 2021, just after midnight, Larry H. was pumping gas when he heard
a noise. When he went to check on the noise, he saw someone throwing something that
“seemed like a chair” against the windows of a Rite Aid. He was too far to identify
anything about the person’s physical features but could see what they were wearing—a
white jacket and red shorts. He also didn’t see whether the person actually broke
anything. Larry called 911 and told them what he saw.
Larry H. eventually lost sight of the individual but found him again before police
arrived. Larry H. pointed out the person he saw to the police. The police took the
identified man into custody, and Larry H. confirmed to them that this was the same
person he saw throwing something at the windows. Stills taken from the reporting
officers’ body camera footage show Hill wearing a white jacket and blue pants. Neither
the officers nor Larry H. saw anyone else in the area. Hill initially gave a false identity,
but the officers found his real name on an identification card in his wallet, which was in
some nearby personal belongings.
2
The officers observed and photographed broken windows on the Rite Aid and
broken windows on a nearby Ono Hawaiian. The police didn’t find a chair but did find
the lid to a trash can inside the Ono Hawaiian.
Camera footage of the area showed a person walking towards a nearby Ono
Hawaiian, stop, and make “an upper torso movement.” The footage then shows
“something is thrown or ejected towards the building.” A different camera angle shows
the person wearing a white jacket over a dark shirt with blue jeans.
Rite Aid paid around $3,900 for repairs, and Ono Hawaiian paid around $1,200.
The San Bernardino County District Attorney charged Hill with two counts of
felony vandalism and alleged Hill had a prior strike. (Pen. Code, §§ 594, subd. (a),
1170.12, subd. (a)-(d), 667 subd. (b)-(i).) Hill proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, Larry H.
testified Hill was not the person he saw throwing something at the Rite Aid and not the
person he identified to the officers. Nevertheless, a jury convicted Hill on both counts.
Hill waived a jury trial on the prior strike.
The court sentenced Hill to an aggregate term of five years four months, composed
of the midterm of two years—doubled to four for the prior strike—for count 1 plus
16 months—one-third the midterm doubled—for count 2.
Hill timely appealed.
3
II
ANALYSIS
We appointed counsel to represent Hill on appeal, and counsel has filed a brief
under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and
potential arguable issues, and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.
Counsel’s brief raised one potential issue for our consideration: whether there was
sufficient evidence to prove the elements of the crimes alleged. We offered Hill an
opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Hill.
However, we did find a clerical error in the sentencing minute order. Omitting
reference to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(1), the order incorrectly states the
sentencing court imposed the middle term of 4 years for count 1, and one-third the middle
term of 1 year four months for count 2, when in fact the middle terms for each count are
half those amounts, and the court doubled both midterms under the Three Strikes law.
4
III
DISPOSITION
We direct the trial court to amend the July 21, 2021 minute order to reflect the
correct midterms for counts 1 and 2 and to reflect those midterms were doubled under
Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(1). In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
5