Filed 2/22/16 P. v. L opez CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LOUIS LARA LOPEZ, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant. B263374

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA100173)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L.

Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed.

Carlos Ramirez, under appointment b y the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________ _____ _______2

Louis Lara Lopez

, Jr. was charged with one count of first degree burglary after he

pried open the money compartment of a w ashing machine in the laundry room of an

apartment complex in October 2014

. In December 2014, Lopez waived his right to a jury trial and, pursuant to a

negotiated agreement, pleaded no contest to one felony count of second degree burglary

(Pen. Code, § 45 9) 1 and admitted he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony

conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)

- (j); 1170.12)

and had served a separate prison term for a felony ( § 667.5, subd. (b))

. In accordance

with the a greement, t he trial court sentenced Lop ez to an aggregate state prison term of

five years: Four years (the two

- year middle term doubled under the three strikes law) for

second degree burglary, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement

.

On Feb ruary 13 , 2015 Lop ez, representing himself, filed a petition seeking to

reduce his fel ony conviction to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe

Neighborhoods and Schools Act (§ 1170.18). The trial court denied the petition, finding

Lope z was not elig ible for resentencing under Proposition 47. Lopez filed a timely notice

of appeal.

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

record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On November 16

,
2015 we advised Lop ez he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues

he wished us to consider. We have received no response.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Lope z’s appellate attorney

has fully complied with the re sponsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists.

( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756];

People v . Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118

- 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,

441

- 442.) At the hearing, repre sented by counsel, Lopez argued that the laundry room be

viewed as a commercial establishment, rather than as part of a residential complex. The

1 Statutory references are to this code.3

facts do not support that argument; as a residential burglary, this conviction does not

qualify for Propositio n 47 resentencing.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS

, P. J.

SEGAL, J.