Opinion
H050550
01-26-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEONTE LOVELL TEXADA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C2014706)
WILSON, J.
Defendant Deonte Lovell Texada appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of first degree burglary with a person present (Pen. Code,§§ 460, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (c)(21)) and one count of second degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (b)). Appointed counsel for Texada filed an opening brief which provides the procedural and factual background of the case but raises no legal challenge to the disposition. Counsel asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Texada was advised of the right to file written arguments on his own behalf but has not responded. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Texada, we affirm the judgment.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The facts of this offense are taken from the trial transcripts and probation report, which are also cited by appellate counsel in his opening brief.
1. October 29, 2020 vehicle burglary
About 2:30 a.m. on October 29, 2020, Pedro Q. walked outside to his car to go to work. As Pedro Q. approached his vehicle, he realized someone, later identified as Texada, was sitting in the driver's seat. Pedro Q. testified that he had locked his vehicle when he parked it the night before. Pedro Q. backed away from his car as Texada began yelling at him. Texada exited the car and walked away toward nearby apartments as Pedro Q. called police. Pedro Q. looked inside his car and noticed that an iPhone, some cash, work knives, and other miscellaneous items such as a lighter and pens were missing. Police detained Texada a short distance away and Pedro Q. identified him as the person who was in his car. Texada had Pedro Q.'s iPhone and other items taken from the car in his pockets. Pedro Q. accurately described the iPhone and the money (a large plastic bag containing approximately $100 in quarters) to police before any of the items recovered from Texada were shown to him. In examining Pedro Q.'s vehicle, police found a bent wire hanger next to the car door. A police officer testified that a wire coat hangar can be "unfold[ed]" and used to open a locked car door from the outside.
We refer to the victim by his first name and last initial to protect his privacy interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).)
2. November 4, 2020 burglary
K.B. testified that he was in his home at approximately 7:30 a.m. on November 4, 2020, when he received an alert on his phone from the surveillance camera/motion detector overlooking his driveway. K.B. accessed the camera's real-time video feed and saw a man, later identified as Texada, inside K.B.'s car that was parked in the driveway.
We refer to the victim by his first and last initials to protect his privacy interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).)
K.B. testified that he could not recall whether he had locked his car or left it unlocked after he parked it in the driveway. Texada then exited the car with K.B.'s garage door remote control and K.B. saw Texada walk toward the garage. K.B. walked from his bedroom toward the kitchen door that opens to his garage and could see daylight coming through the blinds, indicating that the garage door had been opened. K.B. did not open the blinds or the door but called the police. Within a short time, K.B. saw the light from inside the garage disappear as the garage door closed. The surveillance camera showed Texada walking down the driveway and toward Santa Teresa Street. K.B. confirmed that nothing had been taken from his garage or his vehicle, aside from his garage door opener.
K.B. has a surveillance camera over his driveway and another overlooking his backyard, but he did not have a camera inside his garage.
Texada was apprehended by police at a nearby convenience store approximately three minutes after K.B. called. Police searched Texada and found K.B.'s garage door opener in his pocket. There were no marks or damage to K.B.'s vehicle to indicate that the door had been forced open but there was no way to be certain if the car had been left unlocked or opened by some other means.
An officer went back to K.B.'s house with the remote control and confirmed that it opened K.B.'s garage door.
3. November 18, 2018 auto theft (uncharged offense)
Prior to deliberations, the jury was instructed on evidence of uncharged offenses as follows: "The People presented evidence that the defendant committed the offense, a vehicle theft, that was not charged in this case. You may consider this evidence only if the People have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, in fact, committed the uncharged offense. [¶] Proof by a preponderance of the evidence is a different burden of proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A fact is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if you conclude that it is more likely than not that the fact is true. If the People have not met this burden, you must disregard this evidence entirely. If you decide that the defendant committed the uncharged offense, you may, but are not required to, consider that evidence for the limited purpose of deciding whether the defendant acted with the intent to commit theft during the charged burglaries in this case. [¶] In evaluating this evidence consider the similarity or lack of similarity between the uncharged offense and the charged offenses. Do not conclude from this evidence that the defendant has a bad character or is disposed to commit crime. If you conclude that the defendant committed the uncharged offense, that conclusion is only one factor to consider along with all the other evidence. It is not sufficient by itself to prove that the defendant is guilty of Counts 1 through 3 or that the, quote, person present allegation, unquote, has been proved. The People must still prove each charge and allegation beyond a reasonable doubt."
The prosecution also introduced evidence that on November 18, 2018, Texada stole an automobile from a used car dealership lot in Vallejo, California. The key had been left inside the vehicle, a convertible, and the vehicle's top was down. On the surveillance video, the dealership's owner saw a Black male jump into the vehicle and drive away. After the theft was reported, police apprehended Texada in the stolen vehicle within a few miles of the dealership. The parties stipulated that Texada was subsequently convicted of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)).
B. Procedural Background
On September 6, 2022, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a first amended information charging Texada with one count of first degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a); count 1), and two counts of second degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (b); counts 2, 3). As to count 1, the information alleged that there was a person present in the residence at the time of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). The information also alleged, in connection with all three counts, that Texada had prior convictions that were numerous or of increasing seriousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2); § 1170, subd. (b)) and had served a prior prison term (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3); § 1170, subd. (b).)
Following a trial, the jury convicted Texada on counts 1 and 3 but found him not guilty on count 2. The parties subsequently stipulated to the prior conviction and prior prison term special aggregators alleged in the information.
The jury also found true the special allegation that a person was present in the residence during the burglary charged in count 1.
The trial court sentenced Texada to the lower term of two years in prison on count 1, but suspended execution of sentence and placed him on felony probation for three years. On count 3, the court imposed a sentence of "12 months" in county jail with credit for time served. The court imposed but stayed all fines and fees pursuant to People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.
Texada timely appealed.
II. Discussion
Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record. We find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Texada.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: GREENWOOD, P.J., BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.