Filed 9/3/25 P. v. Ortizestrada CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B341803 (Super. Ct. No. 23F-07902) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County) v. DANNY ORTIZESTRADA, Defendant and Appellant.

S.O. and L.T. were at home when Ortizestrada reached in through their bedroom window and attempted to open it. He fled when they sat up. In their backyard police found a backpack containing Ortizestrada’s credit cards and jail documents. The jury convicted Ortizestrada of first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, 1 §§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 462, subd. (a).) The jury found true allegations that a person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residence during the commission of the burglary (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)), and that he committed the crime while All statutory references are to the Penal Code. released on his own recognizance (§ 12022.1).

Five days earlier, at 1:42 a.m., Ortizestrada used a flashlight to look into the windows of the home of J.R. At 6:42 a.m., J.R. was awakened by his dog barking and saw Ortizestrada standing on J.R.’s property in front of the residence.

He spoke to Ortizestrada through a doorbell monitoring system and told him to leave. The jury found Ortizestrada guilty of misdemeanor loitering (§ 647, subd. (h)).

On October 16, 2024, the trial court sentenced Ortizestrada to 1 year 4 months in state prison for burglary (one-third the middle term of four years) plus two years for the own recognizance enhancement (§ 12022.1), both consecutive to the four-year sentence previously imposed in a separate case, 23F- 03663. 2 The total sentence for both cases was seven years four months. The court stayed a jail sentence of 180 days for misdemeanor loitering. The court awarded no presentence credit for time served in this case, 23F-07902.

We appointed counsel to represent Ortizestrada in this appeal. After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On June 6, 2025, we advised Ortizestrada by mail that he had 30 days within which to file a supplemental brief to raise any issues he wished us to consider.

We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Ortizestrada’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

2 Case 23F-03663 is on appeal in this court in case number B340473.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

CODY, J.

Catherine J. Swysen, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo ______________________________ Lisa M. Jensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.