Filed 8/19/14 P. v. Nevarez CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALBERT NEVA REZ,

Defendant and Appellant. B253120

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA084351)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles,

Candace Beason, Judge. Affirmed.

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Elizabeth A.

Courtenay, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Albert Nevarez (defendant) appealed from a judgment of

conviction following his no contest plea to two counts of second degree robbery

. 1 On

appeal, a ppointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief in accordance with People

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that this court conduct an independent review

of the record to determine if there are any issues which if resolved in defendant’s favor

would require reversal or modification of the judgment or appealable order. On June 4

,
2014, we g a ve notice to defendant that his counsel had fail ed to find any arguable issues

and that defendant had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any grounds of

appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not file

a response brief or letter. After independen tly reviewing the record, we affirm the

judgment.

BACKGROUND

The District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information charging

defendant with four counts of second degree robbery in violation of Pen al Code section

211 (counts 1 through 4) ; two c ounts of assault with a firearm in violation of Pen al Code

section 245, subdivision (a) (2) (counts 5 and 11) ; one count of second degree burglary in

violation of Pen al Code section 459 (count 6) ; four counts of false imprisonment by

violence in violation o f Pen al Code section 236 (counts 7 through 10 ) ; one count of petty

theft in violation of Pen al Code section 484

, subdivision (a) (count 12) ; and one count of

dissuading a witness in violation of Pen al Code section 136.1

, subdivision (c) ( 1 ) (count

13). The District Attorney alleged as to counts 1 through 11, and 13, that a principal was

1 Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cau se. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) Accordingly, defendant’s appeal is limited to “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1) and (4); People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1099.)armed with a handgun pursuant to Pen al Code section 12022, subd ivision (a)(1) ; the

offenses were committed for the benefit of a street gang pursuant to Pen al Code section

18 6.22, subd ivi s ions (b)(1)(B) and (C), and (b) (4) ; and the offenses were serious or

violent felonies pursuant to Pen al Code section s 290, subd ivision ( c ) , and 1170,

subd ivision (h)(3)

. The District Attorney alleged as to counts 1 through 4

, and 6 th r ough

1 0

, that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of these offenses pursuant

to Pen al Code section 12022.53, subd ivision s (b) and (e)(1)

.

D efendant entered a plea of no contest to two counts of second degree robbery

(counts 1 and 2) and admit ted the gang enhancement under Penal Code, section 186.22,

subdivisions (b)(1)(B). Pursuant to a plea bargain, the tri a l court sentenced defendant to

state prison for a term of 10 years, consisting of a high term of five years on count 1; a

midterm of thr ee years on count 2, stayed ; and five years for the gang enhancement. It

ordered defendant to pay various fines and assessments, and to make restitution payments

to the victims. The trial court also awarded defendant custody credit.

D efendant filed a m otion to modify his sentence under Penal Code, section 1170,

subdivision (d). The trial court denied the motion because “defendant entered into a plea

agreement for a particular sentence which is what he received

. ” Defendant timely

appealed. In his form notice of appeal, defendant checked the box that states that his

appeal is based on his sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect

the validity of the plea.

DISCUSSION

We have made an independent examination of the entire re cord to determine if

there are any other arguable issues on appeal. Based on that review, we have determined

that there are no arguable issues on appeal. We are therefore satisfied that defendant ’ s

counsel has fully complied with h er responsibilities und er People v. Wende

, supra , 25

Cal.3d 436

.DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MOSK, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.

KRIEGLER, J.