People v. Zackery CA6

Filed 10/25/21 P. v. Zackery CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H048522 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2007695)

v.

REGINALD CHARLES ZACKERY, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Reginald Charles Zackery, Jr. pleaded no contest to criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a)),1 misdemeanor battery on the mother of his child (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)), misdemeanor criminal contempt for violating a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)), and misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court placed defendant on probation with various terms and conditions, including that he serve 180 days in county jail and pay victim restitution. Defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no response from defendant.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

As we will explain, pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have reviewed the entire record and determined that there is no arguable issue on appeal other than the correction of a clerical error in the clerk’s sentencing minutes. Therefore, we will order the correction of the clerk’s minutes and affirm the order of probation. II. BACKGROUND Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case. A. The Offenses The victim dated defendant off and on for approximately three years, and they had a son together. Although the relationship ended in the summer of 2019, the victim continued to invite defendant to visit her occasionally thereafter. 1. The November 2019 incident For a period of time, the victim lived with her nephew. On the night of November 26, 2019, the nephew returned home and saw the front gate broken. The front door had footprints on it as if someone had tried to break in. There was an alcoholic beverage in a brown bag next to the door. The nephew entered the residence and called the victim on the phone to confirm that she was not at home. The nephew then heard yelling and loud banging on the front door. He looked out the window and saw defendant. The nephew called the police. He also yelled at defendant, telling him that the victim was not present and to leave. Defendant kept kicking the door, which eventually came off the hinges, and entered the residence. He went to the victim’s bedroom. The dispatcher told the nephew that the police were on the way, and that the nephew should exit the residence. The police arrived and defendant was arrested outside the residence. In addition to the front door being dislodged from the frame, a window next to it was broken and