People v. Lopez CA5

Filed 3/28/24 P. v. Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085439 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR073100) v.

LUIS ADOLFO SOSA LOPEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. James E. Oakley, Judge. Paul R. Kraus, 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., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Counsel for defendant Luis Adolfo Sosa Lopez submitted a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record on appeal. Although we offered defendant the opportunity to present his own brief by way of a letter, he has not responded. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Consistent with our Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the relevant facts and the procedural history of this case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On June 28, 2022, an amended information was filed charging defendant with two counts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459, both felonies; counts 1 & 2), two counts of vandalism causing damage of $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (a), both felonies; counts 3 & 4); possession of burglary tools (§ 466, a misdemeanor; count 5); cutting a utility line (§ 591, a misdemeanor; count 6); and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 7). The amended information further alleged a strike enhancement applicable to counts 1 through 4 (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)), in addition to other potential aggravating factors. Prior to the start of a jury trial on the charges, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial to deal separately with the alleged enhancement and special allegations. Thereafter, on July 19, 2022, the jury found defendant guilty on counts 1 through 6, but deadlocked on count 7. After the court declared a mistrial on count 7, the prosecution asked the court to dismiss that count. Following the bifurcated trial on the