1

Filed 11/7/14 P. v. Cook CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ord ered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SHAD ERIC COOK,

Defendant and Appellant. A141198

(Marin County
Super. Ct. No. SC185818A)

Def endant Shad Eric Cook appeals from a judgment and sentence following his

conviction by jury for residential burglary and possession of burglary tools. (Pen. Code,

§§ 459, 466.) Defendant’ s appellate counsel has filed a brie f pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record.

Defendant was informed of h is right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a

brief. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 1 24.) We have conducted the review

requested by appellate counsel and, finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

An information filed in September 2013 charged defendant with one felony count

of residential burglary (P en. Code, § 459) and one misdemeanor count of possession of

burglary tools (Pen. Code, § 466). Defendant pled not guilty to both counts.

The following evidence was presented at trial. A maintenance supervisor at a

residential apartment building testified he saw defendant in the laundry room trying to

break into one of the coin

- operated machines. Defendant was inserting two thin pieces of

metal into the machine’s lock when the supervisor entered the room. Defendant saw the2

supervisor, stopped what he was do ing, and left. The supervisor followed defendant onto

the streets and, with defendant in his sight, telephoned the police to report the crime and

provide a description of the burglar

. The supervisor lost sight of defendant when

defendant turned into a driv eway. The police arrived on the scene about 15 minutes later

,

detained defendant and presented him to the supervisor. The supervisor identified

defendant as the burglar.

The ju ry found defendant guilty of residential burglary and possession of burglary

tools (Pen. Code, § § 459, 466). The court sentenced defendant to 395 days in county jail:

365 days for burglary and a consecutive term of 30 days fo r possession of burglary tools.

The sentence was largely satisfied by time served: 190 days actual days serv ed plus 190

days conduct credit for a total of 380 days credit. Defendant was also ordered to pay

court operation assessment fee s of $80 (Pen. Code, § 1465.8 , subd. (a)(1) ) and criminal

conviction fee s of $60 (Gov. Code, § 70373 , sub. (a)(1) )

.

Discussion

We have undertaken a review of the entire record in this case and have found no

arguable issues . The jury was properly instructed on the applicable legal principles

,

s ubstantial evidence supports defendant’s conviction , t he trial court did not abuse its

di scretion in sentencing defendant , and d efendant was represented by competent counsel

throughout the proceedings. There are no issues that require further briefing.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.3 _________________________ Pollak, J.

We concur:

_________________________ McGuiness, P. J.

_________________________ Jenkins, J.