Opinion
B328564
11-28-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES RAY ESPINOLA, Defendant and Appellant.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. KA129765, Juan Carlos Dominguez, Judge. Affirmed.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
A jury convicted defendant James Ray Espinola of one count of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The court sentenced him to four years in prison. He timely appealed.
All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the Wende brief and the appellate record, and informed defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
We have reviewed the entire record and found no arguable issues on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In March 2022, M.K. lived alone in her house. On the morning of March 9, she locked the doors of her home and went to her place of work. She left a spare set of two keys, including a key to her detached garage, on her kitchen counter. Her backdoor was undamaged and the door to her garage was locked.
At about 1:00 p.m., M.K. received a telephone call from her home security service informing her that her home alarm system had been activated. The service representative informed her that the security system detected movement within her home. She asked the caller to contact police.
M.K. immediately left work and arrived at her house about 20 or 30 minutes later. The police had not yet arrived. She walked to her next-door neighbor's property and looked over a wall into her backyard and saw that her back door had been "kicked in or broken." The police arrived about five minutes later.
After police checked inside the house, M.K. entered her house with police and found evidence that someone had been inside her house while she was at work. The backdoor frame had been splintered, a roll of paper towels had been moved from her kitchen to the floor of a bathroom, a piece of bread and some string cheese had been moved from her refrigerator to the kitchen counter, a chocolate protein shake container that had been in her kitchen and a string cheese wrapper was on a backyard patio table. A police officer opined that the damage to M.K.'s backdoor was consistent with "someone breaking in and forcing entry." M.K. subsequently noticed that the keys she had left on her counter were missing.
A police officer who responded to the scene saw defendant standing "in the threshold of the detached garage." The officer detained the defendant. Another officer searched defendant's person and found a set of two keys and a string cheese wrapper in a shirt pocket. Defendant, after being informed of his Miranda rights, made a "spontaneous" statement that he "took the protein shake from the back porch, on the table."
Defendant was charged by information with one count of burglary (§ 459). The information further alleged that defendant had been previously convicted of a serious and/or violent felony. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) A jury found defendant guilty of burglary as charged. The prosecution thereafter informed the court that it would not proceed on the prior conviction allegation. The court sentenced him to prison for the middle term of four years. (See § 461, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
We are satisfied that defendant's counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
We have reviewed the entire record on appeal and found no arguable issues to be briefed. We therefore affirm the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: CHANEY, J. BENDIX, J.