People v. Middleton CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068302 · 2016-01-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN336498
Trial judge: Richard S. Whitney
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:00Z · confidence high

The trial court convicted Jason Edward Middleton of two counts of first-degree burglary and one count of possessing stolen property, sentencing him to 11 years and 8 months in prison. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Failure to instruct jury sua sponte on corpus delicti (CALCRIM No. 359) regarding defendant's out-of-court statements of guilt. “Was the court required to instruct the jury sua sponte with CALCRIM No. 359 (corpus delicti) because the prosecution relied on [Middleton's] out of court statement that he owned the backpack, jacket, and GoPro [c]amera to prove his guilt?”	unclear	not reached	agree with court agree with court
Denial of motion to strike prior serious felony conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero). “Did the court abuse its discretion by denying [Middleton's] motion, pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) [(1996)] 13 Cal.4th [497], to strike his strike conviction?”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal when no arguable issues exist.
relied: People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 — Evidence must be stated in the light most favorable to the judgment.
relied: People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991 — Evidence must be stated in the light most favorable to the judgment.
relied: People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687 — Cited by counsel regarding corpus delicti instructions and statements of guilt.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the discretionary authority to strike a prior serious felony conviction under the Three Strikes law.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968 — Cited by counsel regarding the standard for striking a strike conviction.
relied: People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 — Cited by counsel regarding the standard for striking a strike conviction.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court applied the Wende/Anders procedure, independently reviewing the record and the two issues identified by counsel. It concluded that neither the potential corpus delicti instruction error nor the denial of the Romero motion constituted a reasonably arguable issue for reversal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

A San Diego County jury convicted Jason Edward Middleton of two counts of first degree burglary with person-present findings and one count of receiving stolen property, and after he admitted a prior strike the trial court denied his Romero motion and sentenced him to 11 years 8 months, staying the receiving count under section 654. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying two possible issues (sua sponte CALCRIM No. 359 corpus delicti instruction and denial of the Romero motion); Middleton filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction on two counts of first degree burglary (with § 667.5, subd. (c)(21) findings) and one count of receiving stolen property, reviewed under Wende for any arguable error “We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Wende/Anders review requires only that the court independently examine the record and state that it found no arguable issues; the opinion does so. The facts recited (eyewitness description of the jacket, Middleton's possession of the victims' electronics shortly after the burglaries, his admission to Genereaux that he broke into a house and was seen by a child, recovery of the hidden backpack) amply support the convictions under the substantial-evidence lens the court stated it applied to the facts.
Trial court's failure to instruct sua sponte with CALCRIM No. 359 (corpus delicti) while giving CALCRIM No. 358 “Was the court required to instruct the jury sua sponte with CALCRIM No. 359 (corpus delicti) because the prosecution relied on [Middleton's] out of court statement that he owned the backpack, jacket, and GoPro [c]amera to prove his guilt?”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court did not separately analyze the issue, consistent with Wende practice, but the result is defensible on the facts recited: the corpus delicti of both burglaries and the receiving count was established by independent evidence (Charles saw the intruder take his backpack; Wolcott's items were missing; the stolen electronics were recovered), so any omission of CALCRIM No. 359 could not have been prejudicial. Middleton's statement that he owned the backpack and jacket is not an admission of the crime's corpus in any event.
Denial of Middleton's Romero motion to strike his prior serious felony (strike) conviction “Did the court abuse its discretion by denying [Middleton's] motion, pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) [(1996)] 13 Cal.4th [497], to strike his strike conviction?”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion gives no facts about the prior conviction, Middleton's record, or the trial court's stated reasons, so there is no basis in the opinion to second-guess the implicit conclusion that the denial was within the court's discretion under Williams. The trial court's choice of the low term on the principal burglary count suggests it weighed mitigating factors, but the record described is too thin for an independent assessment.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike a prior serious felony conviction allegation under the Three Strikes law.
relied: People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 — In deciding whether to strike a prior under Romero, the court considers whether the defendant falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes scheme in light of the nature of the current and prior offenses and the defendant's background, character, and prospects; the ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968 — A trial court's discretionary sentencing decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed unless it is irrational or arbitrary.
relied: People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687 — Cited by counsel for the proposition that a corpus delicti instruction may be required sua sponte where the prosecution relies on the defendant's extrajudicial statements, and that the error is tested for prejudice.
relied: People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622 — On appeal from a criminal judgment the facts are stated in the light most favorable to the judgment.
relied: People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991 — On appeal the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the standard Wende procedure: it confirms counsel's brief and Middleton's opportunity to file a supplemental brief, recites the facts favorably to the judgment, lists the possible issues counsel identified, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable error. It offers no analysis of the corpus delicti or Romero issues, which is permissible under Wende but leaves the reader unable to verify the Romero conclusion from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/14/16 P. v. Middleton 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, D068302

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN336498)

JASON EDWARD MIDDLETON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S.

Whitney, Judge. Affirmed.

Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Jason Edward Middleton of two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460)1 and found true allegations for each count that another person, not an accomplice, was present in the residence during commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The jury also convicted Middleton of one count of possessing stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a).)

Following Middleton's admission of a prior serious felony conviction under section 667, subdivision (d), the court sentenced Middleton to a determinate term of 11 years 8 months imprisonment, which it calculated as follows: four years for the first burglary conviction (the low term of two years, doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)(1)); two years eight months for the second burglary conviction (one-third of the middle term of four years, doubled under section 667, subdivision (e)(1)); and five years for an enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) for Middleton's prior serious felony conviction. The court also sentenced Middleton to the middle term of two years for his conviction for possessing stolen property, which the court stayed under section 654.

Middleton appeals. Middleton's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.

738 (Anders) stating she is unable to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Middleton's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Middleton the opportunity to file a supplemental brief 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 on his own behalf. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.

FACTS

For purposes of this section, we state the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690; People v. Dawkins (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 991, 994.)

In the early morning hours of September 6, 2014, 16-year-old Charles S. awoke in his bedroom in Oceanside, California to see a man bending over his shelving area.

Believing the man to be his older brother's friend, Charles called out the friend's name.

The man did not respond. Instead, the man picked up Charles's backpack, walked up a staircase to Charles's balcony, and ran away. Charles discovered that his backpack, laptop computer, and GoPro camera were missing from his bedroom. Charles's family called police. Charles believed the man had short hair or a shaved head and was wearing a black athletic jacket with white stripes down the arms.

Sandra Wolcott lived in the same condominium complex as Charles. Later the same morning, Wolcott discovered several items missing from her residence, including a laptop computer, a tablet computer, silver flatware, and rare coins. Since her front door was locked, Wolcott believed that whoever had taken the items had entered from her balcony while she was sleeping. When Wolcott learned that another residence had been burglarized as well, she went to the police.

3 Soon after the burglaries, Colton Genereaux encountered Middleton on the beach in Oceanside. They did not know each other previously. Genereaux asked Middleton for a cigarette, and they began to talk. Middleton had a backpack with him. As they talked, Middleton removed two laptops, a tablet computer, and a GoPro camera from the backpack and examined them. Middleton was wearing a black athletic jacket (a "hoodie") with white stripes on the arms. He was very sweaty and appeared tired.

Middleton and Genereaux went to a diner to eat breakfast. Genereaux asked Middleton how he had obtained the various electronics in his backpack. Middleton said he had broken into a house. He recounted how a child had woken up and saw him when he took a laptop from one of the rooms. Middleton's story bothered Genereaux;

Genereaux had experienced something similar as a child. Genereaux decided to find a way to return the stolen property to the child.

Middleton asked Genereaux if he knew anyone who wanted to buy the electronics.

Genereaux said he would try to find someone. He suggested that Middleton hide the electronics somewhere. Middleton agreed. They went to a freeway overpass and hid a backpack with the electronics in a bush. Middleton and Generaux walked back towards downtown Oceanside and separated.

Genereaux went to a police resource center in downtown Oceanside. He told the police about his encounter with Middleton and the stolen electronics. As Genereaux spoke to the police, he spotted Middleton on the street outside the resource center. He told the police, who questioned Middleton and then arrested him. At the time of his arrest, Middleton had a backpack, the GoPro camera, and a black athletic jacket with 4 white stripes on the arms. With the information provided by Genereaux, the police recovered the backpack and electronics from the bush. Charles and Wolcott later identified the laptops, tablet computer, GoPro camera, and backpack as their stolen items.

The police did not recover Wolcott's silver flatware, her rare coins, and some other items she reported stolen.

At trial, Genereaux, Charles, Wolcott, various law enforcement officers, and other individuals testified. Middleton did not testify. The defense questioned Genereaux's credibility and suggested he was the likely perpetrator.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, Middleton's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, stating she was unable to find any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Middleton's counsel has identified two possible, but not arguable, issues under Anders: (1) "Was the court required to instruct the jury sua sponte with CALCRIM No. 359 (corpus delicti) because the prosecution relied on [Middleton's] out of court statement that he owned the backpack, jacket, and GoPro [c]amera to prove his guilt? Since the corpus delicti instruction concerns statements of guilt by the defendant, must this instruction always be given in conjunction with CALCRIM No. 358 — which was given in this case . . . ? If error, was it prejudicial error? (People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687, 707.)" (2) "Did the court abuse its discretion by denying [Middleton's] motion, pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) [(1996)] 13 Cal.4th [497], to strike his strike conviction?

5 (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) [(1997)] 14 Cal.4th 968, 977; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162.)"

We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and considered the possible issues identified by Middleton's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Middleton in this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

HALLER, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Dawkins B245611 · 2014-10-21
People v. Williams S057534 · 1998-01-05
People v. Superior Court No. S053029 · 1997-01-16
People v. Osband No. S005233 · 1996-07-29
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Howk Crim. No. 6877 · 1961-10-13