Full Opinion

Filed 11/9/26 P. v. Cruz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B349535 (Super. Ct. No. 2024006529) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. JOHN DAVID CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant. Appellant John David Cruz appeals a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of felony grand theft of merchandise from a Home Depot store. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. His counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), claiming that after reviewing the record he was unable to find any arguable issues. On August 13, 2026, we sent notice to appellant regarding his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days raising any issues he wanted us to consider. He did not file a supplemental brief. Appellant was seen taking merchandise from a Home Depot store without paying. The total value of the merchandise was $957 before taxes. In an information filed June 20, 2025, the Ventura County District Attorney charged appellant with grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). The information included special allegations that appellant had prior convictions, and he was out on probation when the crime was committed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) & (4).) The jury found appellant guilty of grand theft and appellant admitted the special allegations. At sentencing, the trial court suspended sentence and placed appellant on 24 months formal probation and ordered him to serve 44 days in Ventura County jail with 22 days credit. The court agreed to reduce appellant’s felony conviction to a misdemeanor after one year if appellant did not have any probation violations. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.) The trial court’s September 29, 2025 judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. CODY, P. J. We concur: YEGAN, J. BALTODANO, J. Paul Kawai, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura ______________________________ Richard Singh Zuniga, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.