The People v. Magana CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s counsel proposed one issue for our independent review in her opening

brief as follows: whether there was sufficient evidence presented to sustain the jury’s

conviction of first degree burglary.1 We have reviewed the record and find the evidence

was sufficient to uphold the burglary conviction.

On June 10, 2013, defendant requested appointment of counsel after his counsel

filed the instant Wende brief. We denied his request and offered him an additional

opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the

mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we independently reviewed the record

for potential error. We have now completed our independent review of the record and

find no arguable issues.

1 Defendant’s counsel states whether the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of “robbery” but defendant was not convicted of robbery. We presume she means burglary.

4

III

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RICHLI

Acting P. J. We concur:

KING

J.

CODRINGTON

J.

5