Filed 4/13/23 P. v. Pacheco CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B320895 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA149403 v. MICHAEL PACHECO, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lee W. Tsao, Judge. Affirmed.

Nicholas Seymour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Michael Louis Pacheco, Jr. appeals from a judgment after he was convicted of unlawful possession of ammunition in violation of Penal Code1 section 30305, subdivision (a)(1), and possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). We affirm.

BACKGROUND By an amended and renumbered information dated April 11, 2022, Pacheco was charged with six crimes: unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 1); making, possessing or trafficking in incomplete access cards or card-making equipment (§ 484i, subd. (c); count 2); receiving stolen property not exceeding $950 in value (§ 496, subd. (a); count 3); possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 4); possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377; count 5); and possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350; count 6). Counts 1, 2, and 4 were charged as felonies; counts 3, 5, and 6 were charged as misdemeanors.

On the first day of trial, Pacheco admitted a prior strike conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Whittier Police Department Sergeant Jose Escobedo testified that he assisted in executing a search warrant on December 5, 2018, at 9124 Danby Avenue in the City of Santa Fe Springs (the residence). A short time after Escobedo and others knocked on the door, Pacheco left the residence and was handcuffed. After he was provided with a

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

copy of the search warrant, Pacheco said he lived at the residence. Escobedo conducted a pat-down search of Pacheco and found a set of keys in his right-front pants pocket. Once inside the residence, Escobedo used the keys to open a safe which contained a semiautomatic handgun and a sunglass case that contained .40 caliber and 9mm caliber bullets. At the conclusion of the trial, the court instructed the jury with, among other instructions, CALCRIM No. 2591 (unlawful possession of ammunition) and CALCRIM No. 2511 (possession of a firearm by a felon). The court also instructed the jury that Pacheco and the People had stipulated or agreed that Pacheco was previously convicted of a felony.

On April 15, 2022, the jury convicted Pacheco of unlawful possession of ammunition and possession of a firearm by a felon as charged in counts 1 and 4 of the amended and renumbered information. The jury found him not guilty of the other counts.

The court sentenced Pacheco on June 2, 2022. The court selected count 4 (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); possession of a firearm by a felon) as the base term and imposed a sentence of two years, eight months—the low term of 16 months, doubled for the prior strike conviction. The conviction for count 1 (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); unlawful possession of ammunition) was stayed under section 654.

Pacheco filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On February 14, 2023, appointed counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On February 16, 2023, we notified Pacheco that his attorney had failed to find any arguable issues and that he could

submit by brief or letter any arguments he wished this court to consider. We have not received a response.

DISCUSSION We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.