People v. Gutierrez CA5
Filed 1/16/26 P. v. Gutierrez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088923 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CF96564900) v.
ROBERT GUTIERREZ, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary R. Orozco, Judge. Michele A. Douglass, 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 Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Robert Gutierrez, Jr. (appellant) was convicted after a jury trial of first degree residential burglary with three prior strike convictions, and sentenced to 17 years plus the third strike term of 25 years to life. In 2024, the trial court dismissed the two now-invalid prior prison term enhancements pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75, also dismissed the three prior serious felony conviction enhancements, and resentenced him to the third strike term of 25 years to life. On appeal from the trial court’s resentencing order, 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.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. We affirm. FACTS2 “During the morning of March 31, 1996, Eva [M.] and her husband were in their front yard when they saw [appellant], whom [Eva] had known for eight years, across the street pacing back and forth at the rear of an apartment complex. “Later that afternoon, [Eva] was in her living room when she saw [appellant] walk up to a large window at the apartments, remove the screen and walk inside an apartment. [Eva] called her husband and told him that she had just seen ‘Becky’s son’ go into the apartment. [Eva] and her husband looked out the window for approximately 20 minutes but did not see [appellant] come back out. “Jack [Z.] returned home later that day to find the deadbolt to his apartment unlocked and his bathroom window broken. [Jack] also found his back window open and
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)