People v. Saldana CA5

Filed 1/14/25 P. v. Saldana CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087779 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F14907497) v.

DANNY PEREZ SALDANA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Arlan L. Harrell, Judge. William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Danny Perez Saldana (appellant) was convicted of first degree burglary and other offenses. He was sentenced to the second strike term of 19 years and the trial court imposed a restitution fine and fees. In 2023, appellant filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1465.9 to vacate the trial court’s imposition of the restitution fine and other fees. The court denied the petition and found the statue was inapplicable to the fine and fees imposed in appellant’s case. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 15, 2014, a second amended information was filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County charging appellant with committing the following offenses on or about October 15, 2013: count 1, first degree residential burglary (§§ 459/460, subd. (a)); count 2, criminal threats (§ 422) with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)); count 3, misdemeanor exhibiting a deadly weapon (§ 417, subd. (a)(1)); and count 4, misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(2)). Appellant was also charged with counts 5, 6, and 7, felony dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(2)), with prior conviction allegations. On December 23, 2014, the jury found appellant guilty of all charges and the deadly weapon enhancement true. Appellant admitted the prior conviction allegations. On January 29, 2015, appellant was sentenced to an aggregate second strike term of 19 years: as to count 1, the midterm of four years doubled to eight years, plus