Filed 9/3/25 P. v. Ortizestrada CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B340473 (Super. Ct. No. 23F-03663) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)
v.
DANNY ORTIZESTRADA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Danny Ortizestrada entered the condominium where S.H. and J.K. resided. A sliding glass door was found unlocked that had been locked when S.H. went to bed the night before. The screens from two windows were “pulled away” and one window had been opened. Ortizestrada’s fingerprints were identified on the windows. He was found with a check made out to J.K. that had been taken from her bedroom. The same day, K.O. saw on her home security system someone opening the screen to the front door of her house and looking through windows. She was in the house when an individual lay in front of the large doggie door and moved the
— 2 —
flap. Police detained Ortrizestrada in the backyard next door. He matched the description of the person in the home security video. The jury convicted Ortizestrada of two counts of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, 1 §§ 459, 460, subd. (a), 462, subd. (a); counts 1 and 2), and a misdemeanor violation of acquiring personal identifying information of another with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1); count 3). The jury found true allegations that a person, other than an accomplice, was present in the residences during the commission of counts 1 and 2 (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(21)). On August 28, 2024, the trial court sentenced Ortizestrada to the middle term of four years in state prison for counts 1 and 2 and one year for count 3, all concurrent, for a total sentence of four years. The court awarded credit for actual time served of 434 days (May 10 through August 30, 2023, and October 13, 2023, through August 28, 2024) plus 15 percent conduct credit (§ 2933.1) of 65 days, for a total of 499 days. We appointed counsel to represent Ortizestrada in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. We advised Ortizestrada that he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Ortizestrada filed a supplemental brief in which he contends his credits and release date have been miscalculated. This contention does not raise an arguable issue on appeal. The record does not show the court miscalculated his presentence credits. The calculation of credits by the Department of
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
— 3 —
Corrections and Rehabilitation is not part of the appellate record before us and Ortizestrada has not shown he exhausted his administrative remedies with the Department. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; People v. Hawley (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 941, 946.) 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; People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 125-126.) 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.