THE PEOPLE v. ROMULO GILBERTO ZUNIGA (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Romulo Gilberto Zuniga was a neighbor of Jose Gonzalez and Blanca Maldonado.   Gonzalez and Maldonado found Zuniga inside their home early one morning, crawling on the floor near the crib of their three-year-old son.   Maldonado chased Zuniga out of the home.   Zuniga fled to his car, where he was found by police.   After his arrest Zuniga waived his right to remain silent, to the presence of an attorney and, if indigent, to appointed counsel (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 444-445[86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) and admitted being inside the bedroom.   However, he claimed he intended to protect the family from intruders who had entered the home.   Zuniga was charged by information with residential burglary (Pen.Code, § 459).

After the People's motion to have evidence admitted of Zuniga's prior acts of misconduct under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) was granted, Zuniga elected to waive his right to a jury trial in exchange for a maximum possible sentence of two years if convicted

At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court found Zuniga guilty of residential burglary.   The court sentenced Zuniga to the lower term of two years in state prison.   Zuniga received presentence custody credit of 32 days (16 actual days and 16 days of conduct credit).   The court ordered Zuniga to pay a $30 security assessment, a $30 criminal conviction fee and a $200 restitution fine.   A parole revocation fine was imposed and suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45.

We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal.

After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.   On November 12, 2010 we advised Zuniga he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.   We have received no response to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Zuniga's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist.  (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;  People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

WOODS, J. JACKSON, J.