Filed 9/26/14 P. v. Jones CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONNY RAY JO NES,

Defendant and Appellant. B253577

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. NA096688)

THE COURT: *

Donny Ray Jones appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial that

resulted in his conviction for first degree burglary, w ith a person present (Pen. Code,

§ 459 ) 1 and grand theft auto (§ 487, subd. ( d ) (1) ). The trial court sentenced appellant to

six years in state prison for the burglary and imposed a two

- year sentence for the grand

theft auto which was stayed pursuant to s ection 654.

* BOREN, P. J., CHAVEZ, J., FERNS , J

. †

† Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

1 All further references to statutes are to the Penal Code, unless stated otherwise.2

We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After examination of the

record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” in which no issues were raised. On June 23,

201 4 , we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally s ubmit any

contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to

date.

Appellant’s conviction was based upon the following facts: On August 24, 201 3

,

at approximately 5 : 4 5 a .m. appellant went to the apartment of his ex

- gi rlfriend, Sha nnon

Arre n dondo and threatened to kill her and her male companion. He broke a downstairs

window to enter the apartment and ran upstairs searching for Arrendondo’s companion.

Arrendondo ran out side and called the police . When Arrendondo retu rned to her

apartment her car keys were missing a nd later that day she filed a stolen vehi cle report.

On August 27, 2013, Arrendondo’s stolen vehicle was seen by a police officer

patrolling a housing development that was also being monitored by closed ci rcuit

television cameras

. Appellant was standing by the vehicle when approached by police

officers. The officers conducted a search of appellant and found the keys to

Arrendondo’s vehicle. At trial, Arrendondo was shown a video of her vehicle being

driv en in the housing development and identified appellant as the driver.

Arrendondo’s next

- door neighbor testifie d that on the morning of

August 24, 2013, she heard appellant screaming and saw him break the downstairs

window of Arrendondo’s apartment. A f ew minutes later she saw appellant leave the

apartment and drive away in Arrendondo’s vehicle.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has

fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.