People v. Osuna CA2/5

Filed 1/28/14 P. v. Osuna CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B248186

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA086410) v.

JUAN HILARIO OSUNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Jared D. Moses, Judge. Affirmed. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant Juan Hilario Osuna (defendant) was convicted of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 4591). On appeal, appointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are any issues which if resolved in defendant’s favor would require reversal or modification of the judgment. On September 12, 2013, we gave notice to defendant that his counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant filed a letter brief in which he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We have reviewed the record and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Prosecution Evidence Leo Silva (Silva) testified that he lived in Duarte, with his brother, and occasionally his parents. In the morning of December 30, 2010, Silva departed his house to go to work. Before he left his home, he did not lock the sliding door that separated the backyard to the kitchen (sliding door), but he locked the door that led from the kitchen to the interior of the house (kitchen door). Other than his brother and parents, he did not give anyone permission to enter into the house while he was at work. Silva did not know defendant, never saw him at the house or a family function before, and did not have any reason to believe defendant had permission to enter Silva’s house. Silva testified that when he returned home from work, he saw that the unlocked sliding glass door and the locked kitchen door was open, and a portion of the glass panel in the kitchen door had been “split open” such that he could “reach a hand inside the