Filed 5/1/13 P. v. Carroll 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

JOSHUA BRIAN CARROLL, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B243459 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. KA098607) 

THE COURT:*

 Joshua Brian Carroll appeals from a judgment following a guilty plea. Because 

appellant pled no contest after waiving his right to a preliminary hearing, the following 

facts are taken from the probation report. 

 On July 9, 2012, sheriff’s officials investigated a report that appellant had 

inappropriately touched his five-year-old daughter in a sexual manner. Appellant 

admitted that he had touched the victim inappropriately on several occasions and that he 

had participated in inappropriate sexual acts with her. 

 After consulting with counsel, appellant pled guilty to one count of oral copulation 

of a person under the age of 14, in violation of Penal Code section 288a, 

 

* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.
2

subdivision (c)(1),1 and one count of lewd conduct on a child under 14 years of age 

(§ 288, subd. (a)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court sentenced appellant to state 

prison for eight years comprised of the middle term of six years for one count (§ 288a, 

subd. (c)(1)), and a consecutive two-year sentence for the second count (§ 288, subd. (a)). 

The trial court imposed various fines and court fees and appellant was awarded three days 

of actual custody credit. 

 Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment in which he checked 

the preprinted boxes indicating, “This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters 

occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.” As grounds for 

seeking a certificate of probable cause, appellant claimed the plea was illegal because he 

had not conferred with his counsel as to his rights and the nature of the plea. Appellant’s 

request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. 

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

the record, counsel filed an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgement that he had 

been unable to find any arguable issues. On November 30, 2012, we advised appellant 

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. 

 Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. He was fully 

apprised of his constitutional rights and the consequences of his plea. He expressly 

waived his rights, and his waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. He specifically 

admitted violations of sections 288a, subdivision (c)(1), and 288, subdivision (a). There 

was no error in the sentence, which was in accord with applicable law and the negotiated 

disposition. Appellant received a fair hearing and due process. 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 
3

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has 

fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.