Filed 4/22/21 P. v. Luna CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Appointed counsel for defendant David Luna filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with one count of felony second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459, subd. (b)),[1] with an enhancement allegation he had a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and one count of misdemeanor falsely identifying himself to police (§ 148.9, subd. (a)).

At trial, two officers for the Twin Rivers School District Police Department testified to finding defendant inside a classroom one night after noticing a broken window. Defendant had bags of school supplies and was carrying a crowbar. After the officers confronted him, defendant attempted to flee but was detained; he then provided a false name to the officers. The officers later found other classrooms damaged with missing equipment. The jury found defendant guilty on both counts.

At sentencing, defendant admitted the prior strike conviction. The court denied defendant’s Romero[2] motion to dismiss the prior strike. The court then sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years for second degree burglary, doubled for the prior strike, and a concurrent term of 180 days for the falsely identifying conviction, for a total term of four years.

II. DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/S/

MURRAY, J.

[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.