People v. Rogers CA1/5

DISCUSSION

We have reviewed the entire record and have found no arguable appellate issues. The trial court properly denied appellant’s request for new counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The trial court also properly permitted appellant to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, although he ultimately retained counsel who represented him at trial. There were no prejudicial errors in the admission of evidence at trial. There were no prejudicial errors in the court’s instructions to the jury regarding the elements of the charged offenses. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. The trial court’s sentence and fines were proper. Appellate counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) This court granted appellant two extensions of the time for filing a supplemental brief, but appellant did not file a supplemental brief.3 There are no legal issues that require further briefing.

2 The petty theft charge was based on evidence suggesting appellant stole Schlipp’s driver’s license and process…