People v. Acosta CA2/6

── People v. Acosta CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 P. v. Acosta CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B347317 (Super. Ct. No. 2025007413) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. JUAN GABRIEL ACOSTA, Defendant and Appellant. Juan Gabriel Acosta was charged with petty theft with two prior theft convictions (Pen. Code,1 §§ 484, subd. (a), 666.1, subd. (a)(1)), possession of fentanyl with prior possession convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11395, subd. (b)(1)), battery (§ 242), and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). A 1993 conviction for burglary was alleged as a prior “strike.” (§§ 667, 1170.12.) 1 All further statutory designations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.  Appellant waived his preliminary hearing and trial rights, pleaded guilty to the petty theft charge and admitted the prior “strike” conviction. The trial court struck the prior conviction, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on two years formal probation subject to various terms and conditions, including that he serve 180 days in county jail with credit for 85 days already served. The trial court denied defense counsel’s request to reduce the crime to a misdemeanor, noting that appellant’s “conduct and record are both significant.” (§ 17, subd. (b).) We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On December 16, 2025, we notified appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. The 30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any contentions or issues for our consideration. Appellant attempted to take items from Walmart without paying for them. Security guards contacted appellant and retrieved the items. When they attempted to detain him, appellant fled. Police officers arrived on scene and engaged in a foot pursuit, but appellant continued to flee. During the pursuit, appellant ran into a woman’s backyard and pushed her with both hands, causing her to fall backward. Appellant was subsequently taken into custody. 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) 2  Disposition The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. YEGAN, Acting P. J. We concur: BALTODANO, J. CODY, J. 3  David M. Hirsch, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura ______________________________ Jennifer Peabody, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.