Filed 5/28/15 P. v. Hughes CA2/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 TWO 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

NATHAN OLIVER HUGHES, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B257593 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BA417887) 

THE COURT:*

 Nathan Hughes (defendant) appeals following his plea of “no contest” in case 

No. BA417887 to two counts of attempted robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 

664 and 211.

1

 Defendant admitted the allegation that he personally used a handgun 

(§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and that he had suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent 

felony (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights and the 

nature and consequences of the plea, which he stated he understood. The trial court 

expressly found defendant’s waivers and plea were voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 

 *

 BOREN, P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 

Pursuant to the terms of the plea bargain the court sentenced defendant to 14 years in 

state prison. 

 The preliminary hearing transcript shows that defendant entered a marijuana 

dispensary, pointed a handgun at the security guard and told him to ‘“give me all your 

shit.”’ A scuffle ensued and defendant was shot in the waist. The entire incident was 

captured on the dispensary’s surveillance video. 

 Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea which was denied. Defendant 

timely filed a notice of appeal in which he checked the preprinted boxes indicating his 

appeal: (1) was “based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea”; and 

(2) “challenge[d] the validity of the plea or admission.” Defendant’s request for a 

certificate of probable cause in which he claimed he was coerced by appointed counsel to 

enter a plea, was denied. 

 We appointed counsel to represent defendant on this appeal. After examination of 

the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues. On January 7, 2015, we advised defendant that he 

had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished 

us to consider. No response has been received to date. 

 Defendant’s guilty plea and failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause limit 

the potential scope of defendant’s appeal to “grounds that arose after entry of the plea and 

do not affect the plea’s validity” or “the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under 

Penal Code section 1538.5.” (§ 1237.5, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have 

examined the entire record and have found that no arguable issues of any sort exist, let 

alone issues cognizable without a certificate of probable cause. We are satisfied that 

defendant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities. (People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

 The appeal is dismissed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.