Court Opinion

ID: 9382773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 18:02:54.873563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:41.483389
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/28/23 P. v. Pina CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079116

 v.                                                                       (Super. Ct. No. FWV20000778)

 ANNALICIA PINA,                                                          OPINION

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel W.

Detienne, Judge. Affirmed.

         John Derrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             I.

                                                 INTRODUCTION

         Defendant and appellant Annalicia Pina appeals after a jury convicted her of first

degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant

                                                              1
admitted to having suffered a prior serious felony (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) and a

prior strike (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) conviction.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, requesting this court to conduct an

independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a

supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Based on our independent review

of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

                                               II.

                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On November 6, 2019, while at his officer about 30 minutes from his home,

Guillermo Corona received an alert from his “Ring” security doorbell at his house where

he lived with his wife and children. At the time he and his family left their home, Corona

recalled locking the doors to the home. The “Ring” doorbell sends users a notification on

a phone app, allowing them to view a live video of the person at the door from any

location, not just from the property itself.

       While viewing the live video, Corona saw someone holding what appeared to be a

real estate promotional flyer and the person trying to look through a window in the door.
                                                                         1
At trial, Corona identified defendant as the person he saw in the video. After observing

the live video for about two minutes, Corona saw defendant cover the camera on the

       1
         The parties stipulated that Corona told an officer it was possible there was a
second suspect.

                                               2
doorbell with paper. Corona thereafter called 911 and stopped watching the video.

Corona acknowledged that he never saw defendant or anyone else enter the home. He,

however, believed defendant entered the house through French doors because he had

noticed that a pin used to lock the doors was broken some weeks later. But Corona did

not know whether the pin was broken before he left the house on the day of the burglary

since he did not use that door often. Corona admitted that he did not know how anyone

got into the house that day.

       A recording of the 911 call was played to the jury. Corona informed the 911

dispatcher that someone was trying to break into his house. At the time, he identified

defendant as a male person. At trial, the parties stipulated that Exhibits 56 and 57

provided a fair and accurate description of how defendant looked on the day of the

charged offense. On the day in question, defendant had a buzzcut and was wearing

baggy clothing.

       Officer Eduardo Padilla was dispatched to the scene following Corona’s 911 call.

When he arrived on the scene, he observed a white vehicle parked in the driveway, which

Corona testified was not his, as well as the front “Ring” doorbell covered by a piece of

paper. An across-the-street-neighbor provided security video showing someone entering

a gate at Corona’s house upon arriving in a white car that she had seen park in the

driveway after circling around.

       Officer Padilla examined the side of the house and briefly saw, through a wrought-

iron gate, what appeared to be a heavyset male about 10 feet away, walking out of the

                                             3
pedestrian door of the garage into the backyard and carrying a laptop computer bag. At

trial, the officer identified defendant as the person he saw, despite his description of the

subject as a male. The officer called out to the person, but the person just looked at him

and then went back inside the garage.

       Officer Javier Millan also responded to Corona’s 911 call and arrested defendant

in the yard of a neighboring property. Officer Millan could not recall exactly which

property he had arrested defendant from. A search of defendant’s person revealed two

wallets, a watch with a black band, and some money in a plastic bag. Corona recognized

the items found on defendant as items belonging to him and his wife. Corona also

identified items found in the garage as having been moved from where they were in the

house. No fingerprints were collected in connection with the crime.

       On April 21, 2022, the jury convicted defendant of first degree residential burglary

(Pen. Code, § 459). In a bifurcated proceeding, defendant admitted that he had suffered a

prior serious felony (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction (Pen.

Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).

       The sentencing hearing was held on June 3, 2022. The trial court denied

defendant’s motion to strike the prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior

Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 but agreed not to impose the five-year prior

serious felony enhancement. The court thus sentenced defendant to the middle term of

four years, doubled to eight years due to the prior strike enhancement, with 92 days credit

for time served. The court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, §

                                              4
1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $300 parole restitution fine stayed pending successful

completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). Defendant timely appealed.

                                            III.

                                      DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to

represent her. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the

authority of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386

U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential

arguable issue, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.

       We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and she

has not done so.

       An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the

record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in

reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-

442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386

U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                             5
                                      IV.

                                  DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                CODRINGTON
                                                             J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                     P. J.

McKINSTER
                        J.

                                       6