Filed 12/13/17 P. v. Vaca CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHARLES EUGENE VACA,

Defendant and Appellant.
B282046

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. YA092788)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Brandlin, 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 Charles Eugene Vaca of two counts of first-degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. The court found that Vaca had suffered two prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and two one-year prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and imposed a sentence of 74-years-to-life in prison. Vaca’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. We affirm.
The prosecution accused Vaca of two burglaries of homes located about one-half mile away from each other in Rolling Hills. In the first, which took place in July 2014, a victim returned home in the afternoon to find her home ransacked and around $25,000 in jewelry and cash stolen. The second burglary occurred in March 2015 while the homeowners were away on vacation. When they returned, they discovered that someone had broken into their house and stolen about $56 of their possessions. In both robberies, the victims testified that they had never seen Vaca except in court.
A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s detective investigating the first burglary discovered a pair of apparently clean socks rolled up into a ball in the landscaping of the victims’ front yard. While investigating the second burglary, the same detective noticed a pair of socks that appeared out of place alone on top of the victims’ washing machine. The detective took note of the socks because of the socks he had found at the first burglary, and because he was aware that burglars sometimes use socks to cover their hands to avoid leaving fingerprints. In both instances, criminalists with the sheriff’s department recovered DNA from the socks that matched Vaca’s DNA.
We appointed counsel to represent Vaca in the matter. After examining the record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. On September 13, 2017, we sent a letter to Vaca and to counsel. In the letter, we directed counsel to immediately send the record on this appeal and a copy of the Wende brief to Vaca and informed Vaca that he had 30 days to submit by letter or brief any ground of appeal, contention or argument he wished us to consider. We did not receive a response from him.
We have reviewed the entire record on appeal pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, and are satisfied that Woods’s appellate attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Vaca committed both of the burglaries with which he was charged. (See People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [substantial evidence is that which is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”].) We have found no arguable appellate issues and, accordingly, affirm the court’s order.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.



ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:


JOHNSON, J.


LUI, J.