People v. Conniry CA4/1

Filed 3/11/25 P. v. Conniry CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084005

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD299582)

NICHOLAS ADAM CONNIRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Nicholas Adam Conniry pled guilty to six charges: burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; count 1); possession of an assault weapon (§ 30605, subd. (a); count 2); obtaining the personal identifying information of 10 or more individuals with the intent to defraud (§ 530.5(c)(3); count 3); misdemeanor possession of fentanyl, a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350(a); count 4); attempted manufacture of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 30600(a), 664;

count 5); and possession of a firearm by the possessor of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1(a); count 6). As to count 1, he further admitted (1) the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 460(a)); (2) another person, other than an accomplice, was in the residence during the burglary (§ 667.5(c)(21)); and (3) he knew or reasonably should have known the victim was a person 65 years of age or older (§ 667.9(a)). Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 indicating counsel found no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks us to review the record for error as Wende requires. We offered Conniry the opportunity to file his own brief, but he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We modify the judgment to correct (1) discrepancies between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the abstract of judgment and (2) an unauthorized portion of the orally imposed sentence. So modified, we otherwise affirm. I. A. In 2023, Conniry was a paramedic in his 40s with no criminal record. One evening that year, a 90-year-old woman called 9-1-1 to report her husband’s medical emergency. Firefighters and paramedics—including Conniry—responded and transported her husband to the hospital. The following morning, the woman was in her bedroom when she heard a noise. Through her window, she saw a man—Conniry—remove the screen from one of her windows. He tried to open the locked window but replaced the screen when he could not. Conniry then went to a sliding glass door, opened the screen, and tried to open the locked door.