Filed 7/24/13 P. v. Sypho CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. KEVIN SYPHO, Defendant and Appellant. D063235

(Super. Ct. No. SCD240712)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R. Gill and Michael T. Smyth, Judges. Affirmed. Sarah Kleven McGann, by appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Kevin Sypho pled guilty to burglary in violation of Penal C ode Section 459 and admitted he was convicted in 1982 of robbery, a strike prior in viol ation of Penal Code Sections 211, 667(b) through (i), 1170.12 and 668. The remaining charges and six prison priors were dismissed in return for a stipulat ed prison sentence of four years. The court2 sentenced appellant to four years in state pr ison, awarded 68 days of custody credits and imposed the requisite fees, fi nes and victim restitution.

STATEMENT OF FACTS Sometime between January 2 and 3, 2012, defendant burglarized a church, using a rock to gain entry in to the administrative building. Once inside, he damaged doors and windows, took property and ra nsacked the pastor's office. Blood found on wi ndow blinds in the pastor's office matched appellant's DNA. Upon arrest, appellant admitted to breaking into the church because he was "m ad" at the congregation and the pastor and

state he had stolen the items to sell for food and drugs.

DISCUSSION Appointed appellate counsel has filed a br ief but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refe rs to as possible, but not arguable

issues: whether the trial court erred when it: (1) failed to strike appellant's 1982 strike prior; (2) imposed a criminal justice administration fee and a Penal Code section 1202.5 fine without determining appe llant's ability to pay; and (3 ) allowed the prosecution to amend the information, over his objection, to a dd a grand theft charge (Pen. Code § 487,3 subd. (a)). 1 We granted Sypho permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra , 386 U.S. 738, including the po ssible issues referred to by appellate counsel, has disclosed no reasona bly arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Sypho on appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

NARES, J.

1 Because the trial court denied Sypho's re quest for a certificate of probable cause, the issues set forth by appellant counsel are not even "possible issues" in light of the procedural posture of the ca se. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Manriquez (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1170.)