Filed 7/19/16 P. v. Cota CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D069371
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS276743)
FERNANDO COTA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Stephanie
Sontag, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found Fernando Cota not guilty of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 but guilty
of the lesser included offense of trespass (§ 602.5). The jury found true the allegation
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
that a person authorized to be in the dwelling was present within the meaning of section
602.5, subdivision (b). The jury also found Cota guilty of possessing a concealed dirk or
dagger (§ 21310). Cota admitted two prior prison convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The
court initially sentenced Cota to the upper term of three years on the concealed dirk or
dagger count and imposed two one-year terms for the admitted prison priors. However,
at a later sentencing hearing on both the present case and trial court case No. SCS279566
(the subject of the appeal in this court's case No. D069049), the court vacated the
sentence in case No. SCS276743 and resentenced Cota to one-third the midterm on the
dirk or dagger count or eight months, consecutive to the sentence imposed in case No.
SCS279566. Cota was given credit for 322 days of time served and ordered to pay a $40
court security fee, a $300 restitution fine, and a $300 parole revocation fine, stayed
pending successful completion of parole.
FACTS
The record does not include a reporter's transcript of the trial proceedings.
According to the probation report, on January 1, 2015, at 2:06 a.m., police officers
responded to a burglary in progress at the home of Emilio Perez. Perez told the officers
that he awakened to find Cota standing inside his trailer. Cota stood motionless and
Perez told his wife to call 911. Perez did not know Cota and did not give him permission
to be inside the home. The officers arrested and searched Cota without incident. They
recovered a seven and one-half inch fixed blade knife from inside his waistband.
2
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below
but raising no specific issues or argument for reversal. Counsel has asked this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel has not identified any possible issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738. We offered Cota the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has not
responded.
Our review of the entire record under Wende and Anders has disclosed no
reasonably arguable appellate issues. Appellate counsel has competently represented
Cota on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
HALLER, J.
3